500 words a day on whatever I want

Notes on xPraetorius

XPraetorius reminds me of the Black Knight in Monty Python. Click the picture for more.

I have not written a blog post since Tuesday. Instead I have been commenting and moderating the “Was Hitler evil?” thread. In the post I took the moral reasoning that White Americans apply to their own history and applied it to Hitler and the Holocaust to show how broken it is.

Enter xPraetorius, who on his own blog said:

… Abagond’s premise is that I’m a racist by virtue of the color of my skin. That’s offensive, racist, vile, outrageous, disgusting. At the VERY least it’s rude. When Abagond tried — hard — to equate Hitler with white people and white people with Hitler, he was at the VERY LEAST rude.

To defend the honour of white people on my blog he proceeded to use some of the very same broken moral reasoning. Unironically. Missing the point.

So, while this stuff is still fresh in my mind, some notes:

He thinks anti-black racism in America is no longer a “big problem”: because he believes in the Bootstrap Myth (his “5 points”), the Black President argument and because, if White Americans were truly racist, they would not allow blacks to qualify for welfare. He sees welfare as a kind of reparations, to the tune of $17 trillion.

His figure of $17 trillion does not take into account that most welfare does not go to black people nor does it seem to account for the cuts and reforms made to welfare since 1980.

His best on-topic comment:

this morally broken reasoning is not being taught in schools; preached in churches; broadcast over any radio stations with any reach; published in any newspapers with any circulation; used as a platform by any serious candidates for public office; sung in any popular songs; spread about in any medium of any reach whatsoever anywhere. So, again, even if your statement were true of any significant number of white people anywhere — it’s not, but even if it were — it represents less of a problem than slow drivers on the interstate.

And yet he uses the morally broken reasoning himself! In that very thread. I have noticed that white people will say the same thing, word for word, coast to coast, yet it does not seem to be coming from the public White American culture, as he points out here. That is strange, I admit. I call it the Secret Course on Whiteness.

He uses the gaslighting, NYPD definition of racism: I am racist only if I say I am. That is why he made such a big deal about me reading the minds of white people: racism is a matter of intention. Since I cannot read minds, I cannot tell if a white person is racist. I can only imagine it.

He says I am a race baiter. He sees me like how I see Stormfront, skinheads and anti-Semites: dangerously spreading hate and prejudice. I am “toxic”, worse than any residual anti-black racism left in America. I have become what I hate.

Share this post:

Like this:

991 Responses

I actually ventured to his blog to “politely” point out flaws in his own reasoning.

1. He himself attempted to read the minds of all white people. Which in my mind even if one is white is a bit ridiculous.

2. He was more obsessed with bringing you up rather than just addressing his own flaws.

3. He decides that because no one knows that he has proven his point.

4. Oh and how can we forget the 5 points. Even after continuously pointing out the flaws in that (mainly that their is no proof to this supposed success that makes racism not a big problem) he still determined no one debunked them.

5.He keeps claiming he is not trying to win, yet claims victory on his blog. I personally did not feel he proved what he claimed to and others on one of the blogs pointed that out as well.

Even though he is a nice man (or other), I think one of the biggest flaws is that he believes his way to be a certainty. And that Certainty is proved by government programs that don’t help the black community in any real way.

He claimed blacks asked for them, so I am curious to see the blacks that requested these programs.

He thinks anti-black racism in America is no longer a “big problem”: because he believes in the Bootstrap Myth (his “5 points”), the Black President argument and because, if White Americans were truly racist, they would not allow blacks to qualify for welfare. “

For the vast majority of it’s history, Welfare was not given to Blacks and was reserved for struggling White families. The argument was made that Blacks would only squander such means. It wasn’t until the 1960s that Welfare payments really became a staple of poor Black neighborhoods.

I visited xPraetorius’ blog last night for the first time. Depressing stuff. Its approach was intellectually quite similar to what he (she? they?) tried to do in response to “Was Hitler evil?” It attacks its enemies (e.g., “the left”) with juvenile pseudo-arguments, bombast, hyperbole, distortion, and invective, yet repeatedly claims to be intellectually serious and “unusually literate.” The pose of intellectual seriousness seems to be a tactic used to distract readers from the fundamental dishonesty of what the blog is doing. I’m tempted to say I suspect the whole gang there is a bunch of adolescents, but these days so much of the conservative movement has descended into adolescent self-parody that they may well be adults.

Personally I thought the most offensive part xPraetorius’ response to you was his roping in the gospel to support his vision of the endless happy progress of white people’s treatment of poc. I wonder if xPraetorius knows the meaning of blasphemy?

He sees me like how I see Stormfront, skinheads and anti-Semites: dangerously spreading hate and prejudice. I am “toxic”, worse than any residual anti-black racism left in America. I have become what I hate.

Abagond. I am a white male who recognizes my unearned privilege by virtue of the genetic lottery. I’m also a gay man now married to his life partner of 38 years but living in Florida, a state which doesn’t recognize our marriage legally and which is hardly known for its positive race relations. So, I am familiar with both being a member of dominant as well as subordinate groups in society.

I’ve been gone for a month to a graduate program in ethics but I subscribe to your blog and read it regularly. This column I felt compelled to offer a response.

A black woman classmate in seminary once remarked that “In America we breathe racist air.” It has always struck me how wise that observation was. Racism impacts everyone in our culture and almost always in ways we don’t recognize. I find myself constantly examining my own presumptions forged in an era in Florida when I attended segregated schools which desegregated during my junior high days. I find that I often don’t realize my own racism until it is brought to my attention even as I regularly reflect on my own thinking. Frankly a definition that says racism is only racism if I say it is strikes me as self-serving and deep in denial.

I do think America has made some progress on race since the days of my whites-only childhood that even then was crumbling. But I also think that was the easy part. Blatant racism is easy to spot and most of us are quick to condemn it. Structural racism is much harder to spot, insidious. And it’s also much harder to recognize and thus come to grips with it. Such recognitions are inevitably painful. No one wants to see themselves as misanthropes.

Racism did not arise overnight and it will not disappear overnight either, if ever. That doesn’t mean any of us are off the hook for confronting our own and our society’s racism, it just means that our best efforts will be imperfect and limited in effectiveness on a good day. And yet we must continue to struggle with the beast that is racism.

Your blog is one of the many ways I enjoin that struggle. Thank you for your hard work and your willingness to endure the push back that will arise from any human being confronted with their blind spots.

Where to begin, where to begin, where to begin…well: I guess the beginning is best. Gonna have to pick and choose a bit, because there’s a lot here, but not a lot of real substance.

@sharina:
I think we arrived at an understanding. Yes, I believe I’m correct. So does everyone else here. As to the five points, for all that I talked about them, very few people ACTUALLY addressed them. Saying: “they’re wrong” does not constitute addressing them.

@King:
if you re-read, you’ll note that I calculated only from 1980 forward. I’ll leave your last statement unremarked upon.

@Frank M.:
It sure doesn’t seem as though you visited MY blog. And, where did I “rope in the gospel” to support my views? I never mentioned anything resembling “endless happy progress.” The Civil War had nothing whatsoever happy in it, but it WAS evidence of progress that white people have made in the past two centuries. Obviously.

You said: “The pose of intellectual seriousness seems to be a tactic used to distract readers from the fundamental dishonesty of what the blog is doing.”

Yep: I’m just sitting there rubbing my hands together saying, “What can I do to lie to everybody next?!? Bwaa-haa-ha-ha!!!” You guys can’t help yourselves can you? No one can have an honest disagreement with you, they have to be racists, or liars, or dishonest, or pseudo-intellectuals, or whatever. That’s just sad.

@Herneith:
Your record is still perfect. You haven’t yet made a post of any substance whatsoever. Keep setting the inanity bar ever higher!

@Harry Coverston:
Your post was so wrong in so many ways that I can’t address them all, and many were off-topic, so I’ll hit the on-topic ones only.

• You have no genetic, unearned privilege. There’s just no such thing. Sorry.

HC:
A black woman classmate in seminary once remarked that “In America we breathe racist air.” It has always struck me how wise that observation was. Racism impacts everyone in our culture and almost always in ways we don’t recognize.

xPraetorius:
The observation is paranoid and delusional. I can only hope that the woman was engaging in wild exaggeration in order to make a point. By itself, however, the statement is jaw-droppingly stupid.

@HC:
I do think America has made some progress on race since the days of my whites-only childhood that even then was crumbling. But I also think that was the easy part. Blatant racism is easy to spot and most of us are quick to condemn it. Structural racism is much harder to spot, insidious. And it’s also much harder to recognize and thus come to grips with it. Such recognitions are inevitably painful. No one wants to see themselves as misanthropes.

xPraetorius:
Finally a LITTLE bit of sense! You’d be hard-pressed to get ANYONE on this blog to admit to progress…of course, you ARE white, so they’ll say THAT’s why you recognized progress. You then said: “Blatant racism is easy to spot and most of us are quick to condemn it.” Boy! Not if you listen to THIS crowd! Abagond, himself is arguing that white condemnation of white racism proves white racism. This crowd will NOT admit that most are quick to condemn obvious racism.

Then you ruined it all by following up with the “it’s under every rock and around every corner, and It’s MOST prevalent where you don’t see it!” silliness. It’s JUST possible that you don’t see it BECAUSE IT’S NOT THERE! 🙂

There’s STILL just a whole passel of money, fame, prestige and power to be had in “finding” it everywhere you turn. See, eg, Obama, Barack, and Holder, Eric.

I encourage you to continue to “enjoin” the struggle! (Dictionary.com: enjoin: Law. to prohibit or restrain by an injunction.) Sorry, just HAD to have a bit of fun… I DO know what you meant.

“@sharina:
I think we arrived at an understanding. Yes, I believe I’m correct. So does everyone else here. As to the five points, for all that I talked about them, very few people ACTUALLY addressed them. Saying: “they’re wrong” does not constitute addressing them.”

For the record, here is what I said about your “5 points” on the other thread, which you ignored and now act like everyone agrees with you:

@ xPraetorius

“People are starting to realize this finally and just starting to tell the complainers a simple truth: (1) if you get an education, (2) speak well, (3) work hard, (4) interact well with others, you can succeed in America. I added a #5: if you don’t cover your body with piercings and tattoos, have a normal haircut (you know what I mean by “normal”) and don’t wear outlandish jewelry — ie: if you present yourself as a serious, focused businessperson ready to get to work, you will succeed in America. And, really, America owes you nothing more than a fair opportunity to succeed.

All your OTHER angst, however, is, and ought to be, YOUR responsibility.”

Right, Hitler did not send any well-heeled Jews to the gas chambers. And Roosevelt did not send any well-heeled Japanese Americans to prison camps, losing everything they could not carry.

Get stopped and searched by the New York police for no good reason – just angst.

Mass incarceration of black men – just angst.

Police brutality – just angst.

Underfunded schools in black neighbourhoods – just angst.

Shorter life expectancy for blacks – just angst.

Higher infant mortality for blacks – just angst.

Blacks and Asians getting paid less for the same education as whites – just angst.

The black unemployment rate being twice that of whites – just angst.

Bad policing in black neighbourhoods – just angst.

Quotas against Asian Americans at top universities – just angst.

The bamboo ceiling – just angst.

Blacks losing half their wealth in the Great Recession due to shady practices by banks – just angst.

I will make a correction because something about the 5 points was recently addressed. They are a thought process, but then it comes back that if you can not read the mind of people then what does it prove.

@Sharina: again, I presented my “five points” as a “thought exercise” to gauge one’s own perceptions as to how this country’s doing.

There’s no “refuting” them, because they, themselves, don’t make a point.

The point is made when someone says to him or herself, “Hmmm…if a black person (1) gets an education, (2) speaks well, (3) works hard, (4) gets along well with others, and (5) presents him or herself more or less normally, can he or she succeed in America today? Hmmm…[think, think, think, cogitate, cogitate, cogitate, ruminate, ruminate, ruminate, noodle, noodle, noodle] Ummmm…YES! Or, Ummmm… NO!”

The answer OUGHT to be “Yes!” Furthermore, and more controversial still, I say that if someone answers, “No!” that person is wrong. Okay, okay, okay…mistaken.

Look: this will be a more in-depth reply than I was planning, so here goes.

A BIG bottom line EFFECT — not the only one, but a big one — of racism in the past was a near total lack of social and financial mobility for black people. This was a REAL effect of white attitudes toward black people. I’m sure you all will agree. It was a crime committed against black people by white people. No white person (whom anyone takes seriously) either denies, downplays, whitewashes, covers over, covers up, excuses or ignores this.

However, nowadays, one simply cannot — honestly, anyway — pretend that blacks lack social or financial mobility. See, eg: Obama, Barack; Winfrey, Oprah; Washington, Denzel; Z, Jay; … I didn’t even mention sports. How about Robinson, Randall? And a thousand more, going all the way back to phenomenally successful blacks in the ’60’s, ’70’s and beyond.

The point: the barriers to financial, social and political mobility have, indeed, come down for ALL people.

Let’s face it, those barriers were FIRMLY in the hands of WHITE MEN (you guys RARELY mention the OTHER whiniest group out there: the feminists who find sexism under every rock and around every corner.) White men did NOT HAVE TO bring down those barriers…they were the powerful majority in America and fully in charge. Did they, one day, (1) just wake up? Or, as I contend, and as is supported by history, have they (2) been engaged in a long process of self-examination, in which they have scrutinized their interactions with every possible grievance group that can be rounded up? I think it’s obvious that the answer is #2. NEARLY without a single shot being fired! Some oppressor! Everyone ought to have an oppressor like that! Sorry…snarky. 🙂

You can see a clear progression of thought chez white people — away from prejudice OF ANY KIND (to expand this a bit beyond racism alone) — for more than 200 years; and culminating, for example, in recent legislation favoring gays, women, Hispanics, blacks, immigrants, even Japanese WWII-era internees. I observe all this without value judgement. Let’s face it, it’s true.

So, now that the walls to social and financial success have largely come down for black people, what’s the problem? Well: the problem is multi-faceted. (1) Any lack of black success at all, risks being seen as the vestiges of racism (this blog and others), (2) blacks legitimately question the sincerity of white “good will” as evidenced in government programs and in other ways. (3) blacks think (<– See? I can do it too!) that whites' faux sincerity makes blacks' recently-gained social and financial mobility potentially temporary. (4) legitimate concerns that residual ill will in both populations from past injustice and malice has a dampening effect on black chances for success. (5) all else.

All these five (Hmmmm…five! Interesting number! Naaaahhh…just a coincidence, I'm sure!) factors in "the problem" represent a NEARLY impregnable fortress — with 15' thick walls and moats and dragons and archers protecting it — in the black mind (<– See? I can do it too! And, guess what, it's legitimate, because I'm doing it on Abagond's blog, where RAMPANT mind-reading occurs.). I, however, have thrown my few little spears against the fortress walls. While each spear did no VISIBLE damage, each one chipped out little bits of the walls. Sharina and B. R. are either grudging (Sharina) or enthusiastic (B. R.) online friends, who have seen and agreed with numerous of my at least secondary points.

However, that fortress — the one in the minds of race addicts everywhere — the one helping to defend against positive relations between races, WILL come down. And a LOT sooner than anyone expects. Instant world-wide communications guarantees that.

More to the point, Abagond's bullet points, above, prove my point nicely. Many of them are merely manifestions of "the fortress." When the fortress falls, the 50-years outdated states of mind, typcical of so many race addicts and other reactionaries, will fall.

King: But surely the point that you were making was not that Welfare payments had somehow made reparation for the centuries of Slavery and Jim Crow in America?

xPraetorius:
Sure. Reparations are PURELY monetary. An unfathomably huge amount of money has been transferred from white Americans to black Americans. It’s perfectly reasonable to view these payments as “reparations.”

These payments FAR exceed any objective estimate of the “dollar amount of the value of the labor stolen from blacks” via slavery.

One cannot, of course, quantify the value of the truly important things stolen from blacks: family, home, and most important: life.

Sure. Reparations are PURELY monetary. An unfathomably huge amount of money has been transferred from white Americans to black Americans. It’s perfectly reasonable to view these payments as “reparations.”

Have you calculated for the money that was made from black Americans with things like slavery, forced labor camps (Southern prison systems) unfair poll taxes. did you also calculate the moneys Black citizens where unfairly excluded from receiving due to color coded employment and educational exclusion, as well as lower compensation for the same work based on race?

Have you also considered that many Whites—actually, a greater total number of Whites—have received the very same Welfare reparation, based on no redress of prior wrongs?

Counting welfare payments as reparations is pretty shabby – since blacks are taxed to pay them and whites receive them too. It is not “extra” money blacks are getting, nor has it ever been rationalized in the law as reparations.

• Get stopped and searched by the New York police for no good reason – just angst. [Meaningless without context. Are you SURE there’s no good reason? What makes you say that. Specifics please. Not “Everyone says i…” or, “I know people who’ve experienced…” or the like 🙂 Otherwise, more Fortress Thinking.]
• Mass incarceration of black men – just angst.[meaningless without context. Black crime IS more common than white crime. It’s be weird if there were not more black incarcerations than white. Fortress Thinking.]
• Police brutality – just angst. [Meaningless without context. A simple fact: no one cares about such brutality against white people. Without that knowledge, the concept of “police brutality” is meaningless. More Fortress Thinking.]
• Underfunded schools in black neighbourhoods – just angst. [Plain false. There is no correlation between greater school funding and quality education. In fact there is VASTLY greater evidence for the exact opposite. “Underfunded schools” is a concept common in Fortress Thinking.]
• Shorter life expectancy for blacks – just angst. [meaningless without context. Build in ALL variables to get a REAL picture. But, not doing so constitutes, of course, Fortress Thinking.]
• Higher infant mortality for blacks – just angst. [Again, meaningless without context. To what extent to black mothers avail themselves of readily available re-natal care, etc. To draw conclusions from this EXTREMELY incomplete factoid is to engage in, you guessed it: Fortress Thinking.]
• Blacks and Asians getting paid less for the same education as whites – just angst. [Yep. Just angst. They don’t get paid less.]
• The black unemployment rate being twice that of whites – just angst. [Meaningless without context. To what extent, really, do black people follow my “five points” that most white people consider a bare minimum? This is an OBJECTIVE fact, and I have SERIOUS credentials in this arena. 🙂 Without that knowledge, to draw conclusions ffrom the black unemployment rate constitutes, yep, Fortress Thinking.]
• Bad policing in black neighbourhoods – just angst. [Meaningless without context. If there is more crime in black neighborhoods, then it would be profoundly irresponsible NOT to police at LEAST more aggressively than elsewhere. Using this means that Abagond is engaging in Fortress Thinking.]
• Quotas against Asian Americans at top universities – just angst. [Yes and no. All quotas ought to be abolished in academia. I hope we all agree on this.]
• The bamboo ceiling – just angst. [see previous note.]
• Blacks losing half their wealth in the Great Recession due to shady practices by banks – just angst. [Yep. Just angst. meaningless without context. Did whites ALSO lose half their wealth? I’m a white dude. I lost way MORE than half my wealth in Obama’s recession.]
• Last hired, first fired – just angst. [Yep. Just angst. Meaningless without context. What are the ACTUAL statistics for who got laid off? I can tell you, as a white dude who has spent time in the IT world, that I have been laid off more than a dozen times…I guess that “proves” that corporate America is biased against us white dudes, right? ummm…no. Drawing conclusions from ONLY superficial “Last hired, first fired” statistics is, of course, Fortress Thinking.]
• The gutting of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – just angst. [Yep. Just angst. This didn’t happen.]
• Resegregated schools – just angst. [Yep. Just angst. Most efforts to resegregate come from black people. This is especially true in Americna universities all around the country.]
• Racial steering – just angst. [Yep. Just angst. I’m an expert in this arena. Racial steering is NOT a big problem, ]
• Hate crimes – just angst. [Yep. Just angst. The term “hate crimes” is itself a nonsense term. It implies, of course, that there are less bad motivations for committing crimes. Define for me, if you would please, a “love crime.” (*) This, obviously, grants greater value to some crime victims than to others. Sorry, that’s just morally repugnant. It IS, however, a very fine example of Fortress Thinking.]

Best,

— x

(*) I suspect that SOME of you will ACTUALLY take a hack at this. Let me tell you up front, there is NO such thing as a “love crime.”

Did you also consider that taxes are levied from ALL citizens, not just white citizens, so that welfare is not simply a payment from Whites to Black. Black people pay taxes too, as do hispanics and Asians. So, in reality the portion of any welfare expenditure is only partially taken from White people.

And although Blacks (as citizens) were taxed at the same rate per income bracket as Whites, they were generally excluded from receiving Welfare benefits until the 1960s, so how about all of the money that Blacks put into Welfare via taxes, while being excluded from benefitting from it?

“@Frank M.:
It sure doesn’t seem as though you visited MY blog. And, where did I “rope in the gospel” to support my views? I never mentioned anything resembling “endless happy progress.” The Civil War had nothing whatsoever happy in it, but it WAS evidence of progress that white people have made in the past two centuries. Obviously.”

I think this is what he is talking about:

“So, finally, why on earth DID whites do it, when they simply didn’t have to? Why give up so much, confess to so much, engage in SUCH thoroughgoing self-examination, and, ultimately, self-criticism? Simple: Christianity. The power of white people’s belief in Christian doctrine drove a relentless, and continuing inspection of their lives, of their thinking and of their history. No honest, believing Christian can live his life WITHOUT constantly trying to be a better person toward ALL God’s children. Simple as that.”

Counting welfare payments as reparations is pretty shabby – since blacks are taxed to pay them and whites receive them too. It is not “extra” money blacks are getting, nor has it ever been rationalized in the law as reparations.

xPraetorius:
You’re unintentionally correct here, Abagond. Blacks making an income under $50,000 (approx.) are NOT taxed for that. Income-wise, that is. However blacks ARE taxed every time they buy something, drive somewhere, pay this bill or that.

I take a back seat do NO MAN in advocating to get rid of all the secret and hidden taxes! I hope we can agree on that!

You are wrong, however, in saying that it is not free money. Of course it is. Let’s AT LEAST agree on SOME terms. If someone gives you the money that someone ELSE earned, that is, indeed, free money.

“@Frank M.:
It sure doesn’t seem as though you visited MY blog. And, where did I “rope in the gospel” to support my views? I never mentioned anything resembling “endless happy progress.” The Civil War had nothing whatsoever happy in it, but it WAS evidence of progress that white people have made in the past two centuries. Obviously.”

I think this is what he is talking about:

“So, finally, why on earth DID whites do it, when they simply didn’t have to? Why give up so much, confess to so much, engage in SUCH thoroughgoing self-examination, and, ultimately, self-criticism? Simple: Christianity. The power of white people’s belief in Christian doctrine drove a relentless, and continuing inspection of their lives, of their thinking and of their history. No honest, believing Christian can live his life WITHOUT constantly trying to be a better person toward ALL God’s children. Simple as that.”

xPraerorius:
Thanks, Abagond, for finding that… As one can plainly see, I didn’t in any way “rope in the gospel.” However if Frank thinks that Christianity was NOT the main motivator for whites’ re-examination of there won behavior, then he’s saying that we white dudes just one day decided to turn over a new leaf. On behalf of all white people, I appreciate the rather HUGE compliment to my ethnicity and me, but it REALLY is not warranted. No the the noble impulse came from Christianity.

Btw: if I’d “roped in gospel,” I’d have, I suspect, actually quoted some gospel at some point, no?

King said:
Did you also consider that taxes are levied from ALL citizens, not just white citizens, so that welfare is not simply a payment from Whites to Black. Black people pay taxes too, as do hispanics and Asians. So, in reality the portion of any welfare expenditure is only partially taken from White people.

And although Blacks (as citizens) were taxed at the same rate per income bracket as Whites, they were generally excluded from receiving Welfare benefits until the 1960s, so how about all of the money that Blacks put into Welfare via taxes, while being excluded from benefitting from it?

Again, was this included in your calculus or not?

xPraetorius:
Thanks, King, for your thoughtful reply. The considerations you mention are the reason I calculated from 1980 forward.

However, I need to correct you — sort of — INCOME taxes have NOT been levied from ALL citizens for DECADES. The steeply “progressive” income tax system leaves nearly HALF of all workers OFF the tax rolls. However, you and I, and everyone else, pay taxes in every product we ever buy. All those who manufacture, transport, wholesale or retail their products pass their tax burden on to … you and me. It’s why I’ve said — over on my blog — that ALL taxes are income taxes on you and me.

Bottom line: All people pay taxes, but those who make less than roughly $50,000 a year pay a LOT less TAX, and no INCOME tax.

I’d be REALLY happy to have you join us in the quest to get RID of the hidden and secret and back-door taxes, in favor of a truly FAIR tax: One that EVERY taxpayer understands in terms of the impact it has on his life.

1. A federal court earlier this week ruled the NYPD’s stop and frisk policy as unconstitutional because it was unreasonable search and unjustifiably fell on blacks and Latinos way more than whites – ie, racist.

2. The Supreme Court in June in effect freed the South and other voting districts with a racist past from federal supervision under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Justice Department can still challenge voting changes, and probably will under Holder, but is unlikely to under any future Republican presidents.

You two are twins, you make the same arguments in essence just pointed in different directions but the whole is Hitler Evil blog was one big giant look what is in my hand (Let’s give credit to David Chappelle) and you, xPraetorius feel for it and tried to make moral justifications and try to defend the United States when in argument is BS in the first place.

It is not an apple to apples comparison

You might try was Nazi Germany evil and compare it to the Roosevelt Administration
You might try was Hitler evil and compare him to Roosevelt
You might try was Hitler evil and compare him to George Washington

Guess what there is white on black racism in America, Second guess what there is black on white racism in America

Corollary

1) White people tend to underestimate racism and 2) Black people tend to overestimate racism — this is a statistical truth with many exceptions on the individual level

While, I believe both Abagond and xPraetorius or both intentioned; I wonder if you live in the world with paisley sky.

From What I can see, there is a tremendous hole in your reparations argument that you have yet to plug.

For decades, since the New deal (1930s) Black taxes have been going into.American social programs. Yet these programs benefits were closed the the vast majority of Blacks. This includes housing assistance,the food stamp program, and many other gov. assistance programs [including the Homestead Act, the GI Bill and FHA loans]. This deficit of taxation without benefit went on for decades, until the programs were finally open to African-Americans.

Let’s be clear. Black people’s taxes were going to support needy Whites Today, White people still make up the majority of Welfare recipients, but Blacks make up a disproportionately high number of the pie… at which point, Whites began complaining “Why should White people’s taxes go to support need Blacks?

There are many taxes levied besides the progressive income tax. The real question is, what about all the money that Black people payed into the bot without any benefit? If you could add all of that up, from all of those programs, then charge a fair rte of interest, what do you think that number would come to?

The truth is xPraetorius, that if you truly calculated only the money costs of the results of all of the prejudice, unfairness, and abuse, it would come to far more that the what is paid in Welfare payments. Most people have just never taken the time to look into it honestly.

About Christianity and racism: it’s a gross oversimplification to say that whites became aware of the evil of racism due to their religion. For most of history, Christianity has functioned to reinforce racial and other hierarchies, and this has been done by turning the central gospel message into something it is not. But the basic story of the gospel is that the messiah is a powerless victim of the powerful, yet achieves victory nonetheless. Though usually hidden (but hidden in plain sight), this reality has slowly but increasingly wormed its way into human consciousness, so that we have now reached the point where we can no longer confidently victimize the weak without rationalizing it somehow.

This is why white people no longer express openly racist views in most cases. That’s limited progress, but it doesn’t mean racism is gone or even minimized. As long as there is no commitment from white people to consciously identify with victims, work to ameliorate the suffering they’ve caused, and examine their own consciences to reveal the ways they (i.e., we) hide their racism from themselves, racism will continue to be a serious problem. Essentially, in my view, doing these things means walking the way of the nonviolent Jesus.

What’s even worse for a society that knows nothing of nonviolence is that the more white people think of THEMSELVES as victims of “racist” black people (and other PoC), the more racism will dominate our society. I can see things easily becoming much worse before they get better. So it’s idiotic for white people to congratulate themselves on their moral sensitivity that came about because of their wonderful Christian faith.

This understanding of how the gospel works in this situation has been influenced by the theories of Rene Girard. There’s a very good review essay on the subject by Joseph Bottum that first appeared in the conservative magazine First Things and is now on their website.

2. The Supreme Court in June in effect freed the South and other voting districts with a racist past from federal supervision under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Justice Department can still challenge voting changes, and probably will under Holder, but is unlikely to under any future Republican presidents.

To your point one: this is still under debate. Not sure how I REALLY feel about it. However, if “stop and frisk” is kept to high-crime neighborhoods, I think it may be ok. Get rid of it, and the REAL victims of crime are victimized once again: the people… you and me.

To your point two:
Sorry… there was no gutting of the Voting Rights Act. You PLAINLY are trying to say that everything is the same as it was before, decades ago…this is, of course, not even close to true. Again, no observer — WHOM ANYONE TAKES SERIOUSLY — thinks so. For the Supreme Court to try to pretend that nothing has changed in the past decades would have been to insult your intelligence and mine. All the SCOTUS did was to send the bill back to Congress for re-writing.

To your point three:
Oh? Prove it. I will say to you — and this might be hard for you to hear — that a college graduate with a degree in “African-American Studies” will not necessarily — logically — receive a serious hearing in a job interview — for a REAL job. Hiring managers are trying to find someone who can AT LEAST do the job. Again: LOTS more context needed. You can thank the Democrat Party for all the worthless “African-American Studies” degrees. Join with me, Abagond, to DEMAND that blacks DEMAND a REAL education from American universities.

To your point four:
Yep. Ready for an ancedote? MY income fell more than 80%. I’m a white dude. I KNOW the problem, I — and my kids — FEEL the pain. I’m a highly-educated, well-trained white dude with DECADES of business experience. I trained the brown dudes who replaced me, but who couldn’t do the job, but who cost 75% less, so who cares… I DO know this topic. Very, VERY intimately.

My point: You and others waste ergs and ergs and ergs and ergs and ergs of energy on tilting at the windmill of white racism, when you SHOULD be trying to put in place a business-friendly environment across the country. Sorry: a “black-friendly” environment has been in place for decades.

yeah and welfare is not taking something away from you personally, the point is people got to this point in life … and what do mean by welfare anyway? SSDI? SSI? state medical assistance and food stamps, are you saying everyone should just lie down in a ditch and die by the side of the road unless they have a job?

You two are twins, you make the same arguments in essence just pointed in different directions but the whole is Hitler Evil blog was one big giant look what is in my hand (Let’s give credit to David Chappelle) and you, xPraetorius feel for it and tried to make moral justifications and try to defend the United States when in argument is BS in the first place.

It is not an apple to apples comparison

You might try was Nazi Germany evil and compare it to the Roosevelt Administration
You might try was Hitler evil and compare him to Roosevelt
You might try was Hitler evil and compare him to George Washington

Guess what there is white on black racism in America, Second guess what there is black on white racism in America

Corollary

1) White people tend to underestimate racism and 2) Black people tend to overestimate racism — this is a statistical truth with many exceptions on the individual level

While, I believe both Abagond and xPraetorius or both intentioned; I wonder if you live in the world with paisley sky.

xPraetorius:
Ummmm…ok. This was completely incoherent. Is there some insider knowledge of which I’m unaware? Can someone translate, please. Otherwise, I’m left with my original impression of (1) English not the first language, or (2) a serious drinking problem.

King said:
From What I can see, there is a tremendous hole in your reparations argument that you have yet to plug.

For decades, since the New deal (1930s) Black taxes have been going into.American social programs. Yet these programs benefits were closed the the vast majority of Blacks. This includes housing assistance,the food stamp program, and many other gov. assistance programs [including the Homestead Act, the GI Bill and FHA loans]. This deficit of taxation without benefit went on for decades, until the programs were finally open to African-Americans.

Let’s be clear. Black people’s taxes were going to support needy Whites Today, White people still make up the majority of Welfare recipients, but Blacks make up a disproportionately high number of the pie… at which point, Whites began complaining “Why should White people’s taxes go to support need Blacks?

There are many taxes levied besides the progressive income tax. The real question is, what about all the money that Black people payed into the bot without any benefit? If you could add all of that up, from all of those programs, then charge a fair rte of interest, what do you think that number would come to?

The truth is xPraetorius, that if you truly calculated only the money costs of the results of all of the prejudice, unfairness, and abuse, it would come to far more that the what is paid in Welfare payments. Most people have just never taken the time to look into it honestly.
– * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * –

@King: this is so well said that I’m ALMOST prepared to let it pass completely without comment.

Again, much of what you said is absolutely true. However, as I’m sure you are aware, I’ve focused on the time between 1980 and today. This represents quite a concession on my part.

As regards: “There are many taxes levied besides the progressive income tax. The real question is, what about all the money that Black people payed into the bot without any benefit? If you could add all of that up, from all of those programs, then charge a fair rte of interest, what do you think that number would come to?” –

xPraetorius:
Please see my previous post. Not sure what “bot” means. Can you clarify?

You said: “The truth is xPraetorius, that if you truly calculated only the money costs of the results of all of the prejudice, unfairness, and abuse, it would come to far more that the what is paid in Welfare payments. Most people have just never taken the time to look into it honestly.”

xPraetorius:
I made a point of saying that the $17 trillion represented ONLY welfare…all other programs push that figure to WAY more than twice that amount. I’d have to source that, though, so please don’t consider that completely authoritative.

@King, if you are asking ONLY that white dudes like me do INTANGIBLE things to make things right, then I’m ready to comply right here and now. What do you want? Apologies? Ok. I’m sorry. Really, really, REALLY sorry. Please forgive me! I was wrong!

Do you want love? Ok: I love you. Take a look at MY blog. I asked Sharina to marry me! Please love me!

Do you want my money? Ummm…Ok. I can give you a buck or two, but I don’t have anything more.

v8driver said:
yeah and welfare is not taking something away from you personally, the point is people got to this point in life … and what do mean by welfare anyway? SSDI? SSI? state medical assistance and food stamps, are you saying everyone should just lie down in a ditch and die by the side of the road unless they have a job?

xPraetorius:
Welfare = whatever you got for free and didn’t earn yourself. No.. No one should ever just “lie down in a ditch and die by the side of the road unless they have a job.”

@Sharina: I need to apologize to you. I made a deal with you that I would consult with you on how to approach posts with which I disagree. I’m well into it here, and I missed the boat. Can you give me — in retrospect — some insights into how I might have better proceeded here?

“Reverse racism”, for me, brings to mind an episode of The Simpsons where Homer was supposed to pick up Bart after school. After several hours, Homer remembered and went to pick up Bart who was waiting in the rain. Bart got in the car and gave Homer the silent treatment. Homer said, and I’m slightly paraphrasing, “Listen, Bart. I know you’re mad. And I’m kind of mad too. Listen, we could sit here ’till the cows came home trying to figure out who forgot to pick up whom. Let’s just say we’re BOTH wrong and forget about it. Now how about a hug?”

The concept of reverse racism is something I see as a distraction that allows whites to stave off their own sense of guilt and unhappiness about racism and their benefitting fro it.

On the other hand, something else is also going on. The arguments I see on both sides are eerily similar. And I sometimes wonder if I myself am missing something. Finally, the hardest of all is for me not to do this other beings. To take what I learn and make sure that I apply love and respect to others, because that IS in my control. But that’s hard to do.

Anon Ymous said:
“Reverse racism”, for me, brings to mind an episode of The Simpsons where Homer was supposed to pick up Bart after school. After several hours, Homer remembered and went to pick up Bart who was waiting in the rain. Bart got in the car and gave Homer the silent treatment. Homer said, and I’m slightly paraphrasing, “Listen, Bart. I know you’re mad. And I’m kind of mad too. Listen, we could sit here ’till the cows came home trying to figure out who forgot to pick up whom. Let’s just say we’re BOTH wrong and forget about it. Now how about a hug?”

The concept of reverse racism is something I see as a distraction that allows whites to stave off their own sense of guilt and unhappiness about racism and their benefitting fro it.

On the other hand, something else is also going on. The arguments I see on both sides are eerily similar. And I sometimes wonder if I myself am missing something. Finally, the hardest of all is for me not to do this other beings. To take what I learn and make sure that I apply love and respect to others, because that IS in my control. But that’s hard to do.

Why? “Reverse racism” is simply “racism.” It’s STILL wrong. However, I DO like your first paragraph. As ANYONE knows — who’s had the fortitude to read ALL of this post and thread, as well as the PREVIOUS post and thread — I’m actually a REALLY nice guy. Abagond can’t help himself. He likes me, but he doesn’t want to admit that in front of all of you! I don’t blame him…if he were to admit his secret affection for me, he might lose a LOT of YOU!

Frank M. said:
About Christianity and racism: it’s a gross oversimplification to say that whites became aware of the evil of racism due to their religion. For most of history, Christianity has functioned to reinforce racial and other hierarchies, and this has been done by turning the central gospel message into something it is not. But the basic story of the gospel is that the messiah is a powerless victim of the powerful, yet achieves victory nonetheless. Though usually hidden (but hidden in plain sight), this reality has slowly but increasingly wormed its way into human consciousness, so that we have now reached the point where we can no longer confidently victimize the weak without rationalizing it somehow.

This is why white people no longer express openly racist views in most cases. That’s limited progress, but it doesn’t mean racism is gone or even minimized. As long as there is no commitment from white people to consciously identify with victims, work to ameliorate the suffering they’ve caused, and examine their own consciences to reveal the ways they (i.e., we) hide their racism from themselves, racism will continue to be a serious problem. Essentially, in my view, doing these things means walking the way of the nonviolent Jesus.

What’s even worse for a society that knows nothing of nonviolence is that the more white people think of THEMSELVES as victims of “racist” black people (and other PoC), the more racism will dominate our society. I can see things easily becoming much worse before they get better. So it’s idiotic for white people to congratulate themselves on their moral sensitivity that came about because of their wonderful Christian faith.

This understanding of how the gospel works in this situation has been influenced by the theories of Rene Girard. There’s a very good review essay on the subject by Joseph Bottum that first appeared in the conservative magazine First Things and is now on their website.

xaPraetorius:
Ummm..whatever. I’ll be happy to have a theological discussion with you somewhere. I suspect that Abagond will not consider it on-topic,though.

With that said, however, Abagond seems to forgive all MANNER of off-topic, irrelevant, cheap shots, scurrilous slams, gratuitous insults and other dreck as long as your viewpoint is congenial to Abagond’s, so I may be mistaken.

How disappointing it is to see you give so much attention to someone who consistently went off topic in your previous post in order to pontificate and contradict his own arguments.

I actually thought you were serious about not allowing xPraetorious to go off topic with comments about himself, and so I stopped replying to him in accordance with your wishes.

Yet here you are with a blog post about his misunderstandings about your topic and off-topic drivel.

He clearly doesn’t know anything about the subject matter of which he speaks, (e.g., saying “Black crime IS more common than white crime. It’s be weird if there were not more black incarcerations than white” despite the fact that 65% of people arrested in the US are classified as white and that blacks are more likely to receive harsher sentences for the same crimes).

Yet you keep arguing with him and keep feeding into his ignorance.

Of course you can do whatever you want but it’s VERY surprising and disappointing. SMH.

“The point is made when someone says to him or herself, “Hmmm…if a black person (1) gets an education, (2) speaks well, (3) works hard, (4) gets along well with others, and (5) presents him or herself more or less normally, can he or she succeed in America today?”—This is what you are not getting. These do not prove that racism is not a big problem. Anyone can say yes or no to that and still make a decision to the contrary.

You still fail because you are still trying to determine a prejudice of a group of people based on a thought process when you can not read a persons mind. Hell people can say and do things in the public eye and do an about face behind doors. Now if you want to play mind reader then by all means do so, but long winded paragraphs will not prove what you are trying to make it prove.

“phenomenally successful blacks in the ’60′s, ’70′s and beyond”—Funny you mention these blacks considering racism was a big problem during those times. hmmm

Lastly, you can approach how you see fit because you have a personal vendetta with Abagond you would not have done so in any other manner. You see yourself as right and it will not matter what is said because you still will see it that way.

This thread is about YOU and your arguments about racism, the two topics you wanted to discuss on the Hitler thread. There they were off topic. Here they are not! So if you want to talk theology with Frank, especially in regard to racism, go for it!

“To your point three:
Oh? Prove it. I will say to you — and this might be hard for you to hear — that a college graduate with a degree in “African-American Studies” will not necessarily — logically — receive a serious hearing in a job interview — for a REAL job. Hiring managers are trying to find someone who can AT LEAST do the job. Again: LOTS more context needed. You can thank the Democrat Party for all the worthless “African-American Studies” degrees. Join with me, Abagond, to DEMAND that blacks DEMAND a REAL education from American universities.”

Right, see, this will not do. Now you are starting to move goalposts. First it was just 5 things. Now you are adding other stuff.

As to the other cases of racism where I added context, you are trying worm out of each one of them in ad hoc or disingenuous ways. You are not arguing honestly and objectively. You are more concerned with SEEMING right than in BEING right. Which means that deep down you do not care about the truth. Which means arguing with you is pointless.

This thread is about YOU and your arguments about racism, the two topics you wanted to discuss on the Hitler thread. There they were off topic. Here they are not! So if you want to talk theology with Frank, especially in regard to racism, go for it!

xPraetorius:
Thanks, Abagond, but I’m just not all that interested in me. I suspect others who frequent your blog might echo that sentiment. 🙂

“To your point three:
Oh? Prove it. I will say to you — and this might be hard for you to hear — that a college graduate with a degree in “African-American Studies” will not necessarily — logically — receive a serious hearing in a job interview — for a REAL job. Hiring managers are trying to find someone who can AT LEAST do the job. Again: LOTS more context needed. You can thank the Democrat Party for all the worthless “African-American Studies” degrees. Join with me, Abagond, to DEMAND that blacks DEMAND a REAL education from American universities.”

Right, see, this will not do. Now you are starting to move goalposts. First it was just 5 things. Now you are adding other stuff.

As to the other cases of racism where I added context, you are trying worm out of each one of them in ad hoc or disingenuous ways. You are not arguing honestly and objectively. You are more concerned with SEEMING right than in BEING right. Which means that deep down you do not care about the truth. Which means arguing with you is pointless.

You might try was Nazi Germany evil and compare it to the Roosevelt Administration
You might try was Hitler evil and compare him to Roosevelt
You might try was Hitler evil and compare him to George Washington”

You are making the same mistake that xPraetorius did: I was not comparing White America to Hitler. I was mocking the way White Americans talk about their own history.

Fact: Black and Latino men are three times more likely than white men to be stopped by the police and have their cars searched – even though white men are four times more likely to have weapons or drugs.

Source: Matthew R. Durose, Erica L. Schmitt and Patrick A. Langan, Contacts Between Police and the Public: Findings from the 2002 National Survey. U.S. Department of Justice, (Bureau of Justice Statistics), April 2005.

Fact: White men with a criminal record are more likely to be called back for a job interview than black men with no record, even when their education and experience are the same.

Fact: Black and Latino men are three times more likely than white men to be stopped by the police and have their cars searched – even though white men are four times more likely to have weapons or drugs.

Source: Matthew R. Durose, Erica L. Schmitt and Patrick A. Langan, Contacts Between Police and the Public: Findings from the 2002 National Survey. U.S. Department of Justice, (Bureau of Justice Statistics), April 2005.

A few things.. the authors state that ” even though white men are four times more likely to have weapons or drugs..” but there is no breakdown by race for the discovery of drugs or weapons in any of the surveys above so they are mixing and matching their data. Also the percentage of Latinos and Blacks searched by police jumped around dramatically… with Latinos being searched by police going from over 12% in 2002 to less than 6% in 2008.

FWIW according to the surveys: White, black, and Hispanic drivers were stopped at similar rates in 2002, 2005, and 2008. (As opposed to be searched..) So at least according to the DOJ there the phenomenon of DWB is not reflected in the survey.

So I question these facts.. as you did above in the “Facts” about black rape statistics.

Fact: Students of colour are far less likely to be put in honours courses even after you take test scores and grades into account.Fact: Students of colour are more than twice as likely to be suspended or expelled from school even though they are not much more likely to break school rules than whites.

How do the above statements play out when the majority of the school administration and teaching staff are black, such as in Washington DC?

@ abagond
I don’t feel this poster can be helped.
I think it is foolish and condescending to believe that the unemployment of black college grads is because they have a degree in African American studies.How can anyone know this anyway?
But, as usual, black qualifications are always questioned, leaving racism untouched. I believe attitudes like this is why blacks aren’t employed, because, as demonstrated here, people actually *believe* these things.
Anyway, it does not explain why Asian grads also have an unemployment rate higher than whites. Or why white ex-cons get employed faster than blacks without a record all other things being equal.

*On Black Unemployment (Notice it is nearly twice as high in every category)
Unemployment rates for African Americans were lowest among those who attained a bachelor’s degree or higher. For instance, Blacks with at least a bachelor’s degree had an unemployment rate of 7.1* percent (compared to 3.9 percent for Whites) whereas Blacks with some college or an associate’s degree had an unemployment rate of 13.1 percent (compared to 7.0 percent for Whites). Unemployment rates are higher for those with fewer years of schooling. Blacks with only a high school diploma had an unemployment rate of 15.5 percent (compared to 8.4 percent for Whites), and Blacks with less than a high school diploma experienced a 24.6 percent unemployment rate (compared to 12.7 percent for Whites with less than a high school diploma).”http://www.dol.gov/_sec/media/reports/blacklaborforce/

*More on Black unemployment
• Young white high school graduates were about twice as likely to receive positive responses from New York employers as equally qualified black job seekers;

• Ex-offenders face serious barriers to employment; a criminal record reduced positive responses from employers by about 35 percent for white applicants and 57 percent for black applicants.

Even without criminal records, however, black applicants had low rates of positive responses, about the same as the response rate for white applicants *with* criminal records. Hispanics also faced discrimination by employers, but were preferred relative to blacks

The bootstrap argument is a nice fantasy. I think it makes people feel nice. Whites wants to believe they ‘earned’ where they are and did not have advantages over others. It helps their self-esteem. Meanwhile, as shown by the African American studies comment, even when blacks are educated, it is always questioned. Of course blacks can’t have a REAL degree.

*This number has moved to 8.4%
I find it funny that whites oppose affirmative action (which benefits mostly WW) for minorities because it ‘targets’ blacks, but are FOR stop and frisk which also targets blacks. Supposedly blacks commit more crime than whites and should be targeted. It could also be said blacks are less likely to be employed than whites, even with a degree and without a criminal record.
But remember kids, programs for blacks are only good if it is negative. If it helps them in some way, we should definitely get rid of it.
It reminds me of that case that went recently to the Supreme Court with that white girl. Come of find out, even if they let no black students in she still wasn’t qualified. She did not meet basic qualifications. Also forty-two under-qualified whites got in ahead of her, but her problem was ONLY with the five black and latino students.
That is something a good amount of whites don’t get. An unqualified white person will get the job ahead of you before any person of color.

The fact is, people aren’t colorblind. How can a black person get in the door of a job, even beyond the first interview, for example, if a white HR person believes stereotypes about blacks? It doesn’t matter if I send my entire life doing the right thing if someone looks at me and decide I’m not a good worker. Or if my natural hair isn’t a ‘normal hair style?’ but straight/wavy, ‘natural’ white hair is perfectly acceptable. If they decide ahead I’m a bad worker, it doesn’t matter how I dress or how well I speak, I’m not getting hired.

I don’t think stop and frisk is bad, but shouldn’t be used without probable cause. I also feel affirmative action should be used among a pool of similarly qualified candidates, which is how is supposed to be used, if it is not being used this way, the fault lies with the employer, *not* black people.

When I went to engage xPraetorius, it didn’t go south, it went in circles. The point he always bring up is that white racism is not a big problem. He thinks that it’s the truth of truths.

Plus, he goes out of his way to defend the white race. He even defended Michele Bachmann’s slavery comment:

She didn’t sign a pledge that said remotely ANYTHING like what you allege…she acknowledged a TRUE statistic: a “black child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African American President.” Sorry…simply true. The numbers is the numbers. In no way did she EVER say that a black child was BETTER OFF under slavery. Ever. Furthermore, in no way did she EVER use that CORRECT statistic as an excuse to justify slavery. Her point — obviously — was to demonstrate how bad conditions are TODAY for black children. Go look up her REAL biography, and you’ll go and hide your head in shame for what you’ve implied about her today. You should be ashamed. I don’t need to brag for her, her bio does that by itself.

When I said that her comment was reprehensible. He replies:

Thanks for this one! If you’re reduced to pointing to wacky, off-the-beaten-track, out-in-left-field incidents like this one, then why on earth are we arguing?!? Why aren’t you offering to buy me a beer and saying, “I’m so sorry, man! I was so wrong, and so silly!”? With me going, “That’s ok, don’t worry about it, BW…I’ll have a Bass Ale.”

At this particular point, I really don’t have to make any more arguments. MY point — that white racism is not a big problem anymore in America — is being made a LOT more effectively by you and others.

Again, the point is that white racism is not a big problem anymore. The end. Now, I should shut up and enjoy the lie.

In the end it was all about what he thinks and says versus what I think and say, and his points are always right because he repeats them over and over and they are not “leftist”.

Abagond, if you haven’t already, you should do a post on how anti-racism is always seen as leftist and therefore are considered ridiculous to those on the right.

Fact: Black youths arrested for drug possession are 48 times more likely to wind up in prison than white youths arrested for the same crime under the same circumstances.

Almost no one goes to prison for drug possession. People are arrested for drug dealing and plea bargain down to possession. Since most drug dealers are black most of those plea bargaining down to possession are black. But they still get prison. Legitimate possessions usually get a fine and probation.

Fact: Black and Latino men are three times more likely than white men to be stopped by the police and have their cars searched – even though white men are four times more likely to have weapons or drugs.

A number of such claims have been debunked. There was a major claim concerning the New Jersey turnpike a few years ago. The New Jersey attorney general finally commissioned a study. Researchers took photos of nearly 40,000 cars whose speed was simultaneously measured with a radar gun. A team of three evaluators looked at the photographs and identified the race of the driver. (Evaluators had no information about the speed of the car). When researchers combined driver identifications with the speeding information, they found that black drivers speed twice as much as white drivers, and speed at reckless levels even more.

As for being searched, it should be obvious that if a group is more likely to speed that they’d also be more likely to get pulled over and searched. Moreover, police are more likely to go where the crime is. So people who live in high crime areas are more likely to come in contact with the police. The more contact one has with police the more chances of providing probable cause for them to search your vehicle.

Fact: White men with a criminal record are more likely to be called back for a job interview than black men with no record, even when their education and experience are the same.

Black criminals have higher rates of recidivism. Personally, I don’t give a flying fig about criminals no matter what color they are. They shouldn’t have broken the law in the first place.

Fact: Students of colour are far less likely to be put in honours courses even after you take test scores and grades into account.

Most people sign up for classes. I remember from my high school days that a number of otherwise good students took less challenging classes to boost their GPA. I thought that rather shiftless.

Fact: Students of colour are more than twice as likely to be suspended or expelled from school even though they are not much more likely to break school rules than whites.

I suspect the difference comes in the types of offenses rather than the number of offenses. For example. fighting and drugs are more likely to result in suspension than skipping class.

“Since most drug dealers are black most of those plea bargaining down to possession are black. But they still get prison. Legitimate possessions usually get a fine and probation.”

Hahahahaha! That’s rich! White people are the biggest junkies in this country… Drug dealers are like grocers or newspaper deliverymen—one on every other corner. The difference is that White people don’t think of White drug dealer as “DEALERS.” It’s just “The guy I get my little stash from.” Most Whites have had a relationship with one drug dealer or another ever since high school or college. They know them by their first names, and always seem to think of them as “real cool” people.

On the other hand, Whites have this image that all Black drug dealers are guys who carry nine millimeter pistols in their waists, pimp women on the side, and kill their rivals in drive-by shootings. Blacks are the REAL drug dealers!!!

His figure of $17 trillion does not take into account that most welfare does not go to black people nor does it seem to account for the cuts and reforms made to welfare since 1980.

The $17 trillion dollar figure could very well be correct if one adjusts for 2013 dollars, as you noted by no means did Blacks receive all of the welfare from the mid-60s but they have been over represented as a percentage of their population (from about 1970 to now, on average about 36% of welfare spending was for blacks..) As for the welfare reforms in 1980 onward there were slight dips but overall nominal spending is still much higher on welfare now than in 1980. It looks like the big gains were for Medicaid.

(I realize the graphic comes from the conservative think-tank the Heritage foundation but it seems to mesh with other sources..what’s dramatically escalated is spending on Health for the poor.. (Medicaid..) the site below does not include Health costs as part of welfare as the Heritage institute does)

I sort of agree with both you and Da Jokah (Although there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the difference in drug usage between Blacks and Whites is rather.small..)

Former New York Police Commissioner Lee Brown (Who’s Black..) explained the police concentration in certain neighborhoods and the consequent racial impact as follows:

In most large cities, the police focus their attention on where they see conspicuous drug use-street-corner drug sales-and where they get the most complaints. Conspicuous drug use is generally in your low-income neighborhoods that generally turn out to be your minority neighborhoods . . . . It’s easier for police to make an arrest when you have people selling drugs on the street corner than those who are [selling or buying drugs] in the suburbs or in office buildings. The end result is that more blacks are arrested than whites because of the relative ease in making those arrests.

Haven’t you and Abagond stated that the main reason that the (offender) murder rate for blacks is more 6 times the rate for whites is due to the drug trade..? Shootings and dead bodies tend to attract police attention.

Abagond? Why give xPraetorius a platform? And why allow him/her/it/them to usurp your threads? He/she/it/they have a blog on which to spout their brand of nonsense, so why give them free reign to do it here? And why devote an entire post to them?

Interestingly, judging by a random sampling of blog posts on that site, xPraetorius doesn’t seem to have any sort of audience at all — or even friends and family who care one way or the other about whatever they have to say — if the comment sections are any indication: they’re completely empty. No “cosigns,” no “dittos,” no “I agree,” or even the occasional “you must be out of your mind.” Not even any Facebook likes. That means xPraetorius “readers” feel that blog is irrelevant, unintelligible, or uninspiring, or its “readers” are simply non-existent. I suspect they’re trying to piggyback on your success, glom some readers and blog hits based almost entirely on your articles. I say make them build their own damn audience, and stop worrying about what’s going on over here.

Based on what… by who gets arrested (and therefore recorded)? or the actual volume of dealers that exist?

“I doubt that. Regardless, someone selling a few ounces of weed to a few friends isn’t in the same category has someone who joins a violent street gang.”

I rest my case. Most White people, like this Joker here see White dealers as relatively good people who are just “selling a few ounces of weed to a few friends,” which isn’t really a big deal. In fact, this illusion is ubiquitous among Whites. They have NO IDEA how much product the friendly White druggie is pushing through the neighborhood—into the colleges, high schools, and even elementary schools. Their assumption is that these guys are small, harmless, have plenty of moral limits and are just trying to earn a little extra bread… it’s not like a real business where people get hurt. But really, how would they know? Do White junkies go around asking their pushers exactly how they run their drug businesses? I doubt it.

White people don’t seem to get it that the Black gang violence is all part of the same supply chain that furnishes them with their precious doobies and occasional white lines. You see, the terrible Blacks are the real problem, not the millions of functional White junkies who buy weed like water.

Conspicuous drug use is generally in your low-income neighborhoods that generally turn out to be your minority neighborhoods . . . . It’s easier for police to make an arrest when you have people selling drugs on the street corner than those who are [selling or buying drugs] in the suburbs or in office buildings. The end result is that more blacks are arrested than whites because of the relative ease in making those arrests.

Agreed, Uncle Milton.

And therefore, if the figures that are calculated upon such an imbalance of enforcement are projected to be nearly even, (between Blacks and Whites) then the reality is sure to be that Whites actually use drugs more drugs than Black people do.

xPratorius said: I trained the brown dudes who replaced me, but who couldn’t do the job, but who cost 75% less, so who cares… I DO know this topic. Very, VERY intimately.

I said this to you before but, clearly your managers did not get the brief on what you peeps in the U.S call Affirmative Action. But, poor management and sh*t managers and common the world over. 75% less, so who cares? You do, unsurpisingly but I reckon it has made you bitter and it is only human nature.

One might ask if you were as good a trainer as you seem to be saying, why is it that the people who replaced you couldnt do the job? Also do you think your own personal experience is representative of what happens ALL the time? This is what you seem to be saying.

I too know this topic intimately but in a different context to yours. In this case, it was white people who mismanaged, to the detriment of any PoC. They were resentful of strides to re-dress the balance in positive discrimination and wanted things to ‘stay the way they are’. I have seen this happen A LOT in one way or another. The only people who did not have a bad times were the ones who were willing to become clowns, because they were ‘safe’.

Based on what… by who gets arrested (and therefore recorded)? or the actual volume of dealers that exist?

Are you suggesting police let white dealers off? I find that difficult to believe.

Most White people, like this Joker here see White dealers as relatively good people who are just “selling a few ounces of weed to a few friends,” which isn’t really a big deal.

I wouldn’t know because I don’t associate with drug dealers. However, I never said any dealers were “relatively good people.” I said, “someone selling a few ounces of weed to a few friends isn’t in the same category as someone who joins a violent street gang.” I think most people would find that a reasonable statement.

Are you suggesting police let white dealers off? I find that difficult to believe.”

Did you not read what Uncle Milton wrote?

In low income minority neighborhoods, drug sales are more conspicuous. Obvious street-corner drug sales are where they get the most complaints because it is visible. On the other hand, White dealers tend to distribute drugs within office building, schools, friend networks, and institutions which makes it a less obvious and visible form of lawbreaking. Most White dealers are just a tier higher up the food chain than the desperate, minority, who in his own eyes, has less to lose and everything to gain. Therefore, eighteen year old black kids with no money take much bigger risks and get caught much more often. That skews the numbers to make White people believe that, in fact, Whites are not dealing drugs at the same or higher rates than Blacks. They are—they can just afford to take less chances

I wouldn’t know because I don’t associate with drug dealers. However, I never said any dealers were “relatively good people.” I said, “someone selling a few ounces of weed to a few friends isn’t in the same category as someone who joins a violent street gang.”

As I have already said…, you have firmly implanted in your mind the idea that most White dealers are “selling a few ounces of weed to a few friends.” I wonder how many Black dealers you see in this light? To you, Black and Latino dealers are the violent dangerous ones, and most Whites are just doing small deals with friends. It never occurs to you that White dealers are connected to the violence that happens upstream in the distribution. You take it on faith that their demands for more product more quickly have nothing to do with the drug wars in South America and Mexico, nothing to do with the gang wars in Compton, Harlem, and Chicago.

White people’s drugs are grown by attractive and earthy Oregon hippies, and are delivered non-violently, dropped from the sky on woven hemp parachutes. They have nothing to do with these filthy minorities killing each other!!!

Almost no one goes to prison for drug possession. People are arrested for drug dealing and plea bargain down to possession. Since most drug dealers are black most of those plea bargaining down to possession are black. But they still get prison. Legitimate possessions usually get a fine and probation.

This is bullshit. The person is charged by the amount of drugs on their person. If it exceeds a particular amount it becomes a trafficking charge regardless if the drugs were intended for their personal use. Abagond is not talking about someone being caught with a spliff or two here. What about the drug distributors? They aren’t the street dealers. There is a hierarchy in the drug dealing world and these petty drug dealers aren’t on top. Many of the people in wealthy communities have their drugs delivered to them much as one would have take-out food; hence they can ingest their drugs in the safety of their homes without fear of apprehension. Plus they have the luxury of top notch lawyers who, more often then not, get them off or into re-hab.

Black criminals have higher rates of recidivism. Personally, I don’t give a flying fig about criminals no matter what color they are. They shouldn’t have broken the law in the first place.

You are really dense aren’t you? He is not referring to whites and blacks with criminal backgrounds and similar educational, trades, or skill sets. He refers to whites with a criminal background getting call backs whereas the black men with no records and similar qualifications don’t. Capiche racist?

I suspect the difference comes in the types of offenses rather than the number of offenses. For example. fighting and drugs are more likely to result in suspension than skipping class

That’s all you have are suspicions. Of course white kids do nothing more than get caught with spliffs eh?

@BrothaWolf :
Well…I took a few hours off, and the ol’ in-box has surely pied up! Just a few corrections for some things that you said that are plainly off-base. (Begin SNARK alert –>) ‘Course I could probably make a full-time job out of that if only someone would pay me for it! 🙂 (END Snark alert.)

This is a long passage for you, ’cause you’re my favorite fish in this barrel. (not counting Sharina and B. R., of course. 🙂 )

First: You did NOT “engage” me on my site. You blustered, fulminated, bloviated and made all the same baseless, nonsensical remarks there as you did here and at your site. You simply didn’t call me a racist in every other sentence. However, I haven’t checked your latest salvo over there. Wait a sec…I’ll do that now.

…

Well, you just couldn’t prevent yourself could you? Yep, you checked off your last box. Your style of “engagement” is a caricature.

Now: to some of your “points,” above if such they can be called.

Michele Bachmann OBVIOUSLY made no attempt, either subtle or otherwise, to justify or downplay slavery. I knocked that one back easily, and even provided a thought exercise for you back on my blog. This is the “under every rock” thing you do. It’s at best silly, and at worst paranoid and unhealthy. Please don’t propose “arguments” that wouldn’t pass muster in the third grade. It wastes everybody’s time.

You said: “The point he always bring up is that white racism is not a big problem. He thinks that it’s the truth of truths.”

My reply: Nope. Just the truth. You and your cohort here put yourselves through all the gyrations and contortions that I’ve been pointing out, and you “prove” to yourselves that the rotten, old white man is going to keep you down and never take his boot off your neck. Read this well, BW: if you believe the boot is on your neck — whether or not it ACTUALLY is — you’re going to think, talk, act, speak, write, as if it is.

The only boot on YOUR neck, BW, is your own inability to keep up with the changing times. There’s much of what you write that WOULD have been accurate — 50 years ago or more. By the way, one reason I label you and others “leftists,” is because you’re writing is so incredibly reactionary. “Reactionary” is the single best word to sum up America’s political left-wing. However, your leftism is not a central part of what I’m saying…just a useful classification for your thinking.

Let’s try something else, BW…Play yet another little thought game with me, BW. Let’s just say that I come up to you and say, “BW: I want you to try — sincerely, really, truly try, to jump the moon right now.” You’d respond, “But, that’s IMPOSSIBLE! I can’t jump to the moon!” Then you’d call me a racist for suggesting it. 🙂 But I persist. “No, really,” I say, “give it a try. A real, sincere try.” So you respond, “Fine! I’l try.” So, you close your eyes, and, with a sincere will, you jump straight up. Obviously, you come back down shortly thereafter, and you then say, “See? See?” And I say, “But you didn’t try REALLY sincerely.” You shoot right back, “Yes, I did! I jumped as high as I could!” I reply, “No. You did only what you knew perfectly well would NOT take you to the moon. A SINCERE attempt would have entailed (1) finding out where the moon was, (2) pondering whether just jumping toward it had any chance of success, (3) if so, calculating how far ahead of the moon to jump in order not to miss it, (4) deciding that just to jump from the ground — while technically not physically IMpossible, was certainly an unlikely approach, (5) asking me whether my definition of “jump” included hitching a ride on the next NASA rocket to the moon, so you could fulfill my request, (6) if I say, “Sure thing!” then, (7) doing a quick assessment of what it would take to accomplish THAT, and finally (8) re-assessing whether it was REALLY worth it to accede to my request, and, telling me “Yes,” and going for it, or “No. I won’t be doing that Mr. x.”

THAT would be a SINCERE attempt to jump to the moon. Or a decline of the request.

One more thought game, BW: You and I are talking on the shore of the lake next to my country home that you’re SURE I obtained illegitimately through white privilege. It’s a beautiful lake, and because you love to swim, your ask me whether people swim in my lake. “Oh, no,” I say. You inquire, “But why? Such a beautiful lake!” “Well,” I respond, “That lake’s dangerous! 200 years ago a giant snapping turtle attacked and killed great-great-great-great-great-great uncle Herb!” You’d be PERFECTLY within your rights to fall down laughing and say, “That was TWO HUNDRED YEARS ago, dude!”

Like in my “jump to the moon” hypothetical — where your first reaction was to say “That’s impossible!” — in the REAL question of race relations, you haven’t got past “Whites are all racists, so there’s nothing I can do in this hellhole of a country but sit here and fulminate against them, ’cause it makes me feel better.” I think YOU think that getting past white racism is like jumping to the moon: It’s impossible, so why even try? I further think, you haven’t tried for a very long time. Your HYPER-defensive, irrational, hostile reaction to my vigorous defense of people who are ACTUALLY innocent of your accusations is indicative of this.

And, like in my “lake hypothesis,” times have changed — changed drastically. You pooh-pooh anytime I say “Barack Obama = Most Powerful Man in the World.” Worse you use, as some kind of weird, cloud-cuckoo “proof” of white racism, the OBJECTIVE facts of blacks being in positions of power and authority in every state in the land, a well as in the White House, of powerful, fabulously wealthy, widely admired and recognized black politicians, athletes, artists, commentators, musicians, entertainers of all kinds, and the MOST important OBJECTIVE fact that — even when there are terrible statistics about black employment, and black housing and black families in the land, that despite ALL that — blacks have been an important and powerful voice AT THE TABLE for decades. These things are not debatable.

Bottom line result: The ACTUAL racism you’re fulminating against is, for all intents and purposes, long gone, but you remain so wedded to the EFFECT of it, that — read this well: you make it a self-fulfilling prophecy in your own life. That’s just sad. Abagond appears to be the same way, and so many others as well. Your and Abagond’s echo chambers, so full of commenters whose VERY first reaction to my dissent was “Racist!” and “Liar!” and “I’ve see THIS kind before!” and “Just like all the OTHER white racists,” kind of proves the point. Your reaction to dissenting voices is, after all, a test of your character, and you and most of the others failed miserably. I wasn’t asking them to jump to the moon after all, just to listen to a differing point of view.

By the way, ALL this back and forth is — itself — pretty convincing proof that I’m pretty plainly not a racist. Remember my definition of racism? The one that you agreed with? (Reminder: “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”) I OBVIOUSLY don’t believe that your current closed-minded, stubborn, bull-headed obstinacy that keeps you so ignorant is in any way related to the color of your skin. I keep trying, this way and that, to get through your cantankerous skull. I don’t see you as a BLACK man, I see you as a CRANKY old curmudgeon, who’s set in his ways, and is so comfy, cozy with his long outmoded set of beliefs that ANYONE who challenges them meets with the same stream of invective and vituperation you directed at me on YOUR blog, here and on mine. I’m — obviously — not a racist, but it’s entirely possible that you’re just a cranky, old dude, with limited vision, and an inability to challenge your own viewpoints.

Some of your amen chorus here are fond of pointing out this “ceiling” or that, as some kind of indication that blacks or PoC (what a positively IDIOTIC term!) can’t prosper in America. Well, guess what, if people of all colors are doing their best to tear down those ceilings, but you throwbacks are frantically nailing them back in place as fast or faster than they tear ’em down, then the ceilings never really go away, do they?

“I suspect the difference comes in the types of offenses rather than the number of offenses. For example. fighting and drugs are more likely to result in suspension than skipping class.”

Misdeeds by young black males are seen in a different light than those by young white males.

Young black males are seen as dangerous, as lacking compassion or morals, as pre-criminals.

With young white males it is seen as “errors of judgement”, “boys will be boys”, as something they will grow out of.

You saw that even with Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman: Martin was a “thug” and Zimmerman was the innocent citizen, even though it was Zimmerman who had a record of violence and a loaded gun.

Whites get the benefit of the doubt, the presumption of innocence.

Black males are presumed to be a threat, lacking further information: The purse clutch. White people crossing the street. The police stopping you while you are minding your own business. White flight.

Uncle Milton himself, on another thread, seriously argued that whites are right to be fearful of black men because of the higher black murder rate. As if black men are feral animals or something. That is JUST the kind of thinking I am talking about.

@BrothaWolf: When I said: “Thanks for this one! If you’re reduced …” it was in reference to the two REALLY obscure dudes you mentioned. A certain Loy Mauch and some other nitwit. When you are reduced to making things up about a retired Congresswoman, and referring to two other REALLY obscure dudes who have long been drummed out of prominence, you neatly prove my point. The obscure dudes appear to have popped up their heads, and they were promptly sent packing. More important, they were never anything more than REALLY OBSCURE DUDES! Hello, BW! Knock, knock! Anybody home?

@BW: you said:
In the end it was all about what he thinks and says versus what I think and say, and his points are always right because he repeats them over and over and they are not “leftist”.

My reply:
I repeat them because you constantly refuse to address them. Again, for what, the thousandth time? saying, “You’re wrong and you’re a racist,” does NOT constitute addressing them. Oh, and I repeat them because, yes, they are right. I suspect you believe the same about the things YOU say. Duh!

@BW:
Abagond, if you haven’t already, you should do a post on how anti-racism is always seen as leftist and therefore are considered ridiculous to those on the right.

My reply:
Let’s be clear, BW, YOU are most definitely NOT anti-racist…you LOVE your white racism! So much so that you can’t be without it, even though it’s mostly long gone! Without that racism, where would your identity be? Where would your blog be? Where would YOU be? That’s why you have this compulsion to find it under every rock and around every corner.

Real, ACTUAL anti-racism is a right-wing phenomenon in America today. Sorry, it just is.

I think I’m going to coin another term: “ghost racism.” It’s racism that only those few adepts — like Abagond, for example — trained in the arcane arts of communicating with racism that’s long-dead, but still around haunting us all, can see. It’s really EVERYWHERE, you see, but only THEY can see it, and WE untrained, uneducated rubes all need simply to take their word for it, that even though there’s a MOUNTAIN of OBJECTIVE evidence against its existence, it’s REALLY right there and powerful as ever!

Let’s be clear about something else, BW: Despite your bull-headedness, I have the highest regard for your intelligence. It takes a certain genius to keep track of the hundreds of socially-accepted but nonsensical excuses you have to avoid moving forward with the times. To be able to trot them out at a moment’s notice, under the pressure of conflicting viewpoints is not simple, and you do it well, as evidenced by the apparently dozens of members of your and Abagond’s amen chorus. I simply suggest to you that you employ your obviously strong intellectual capabilities in a more constructive, less self-limiting way.

I continue to await your apology for calling me a racist — which is, of course, hate speech, and verging on a hate crime — and I’ll still have a Bass Ale. When are you buying? I’m thirsty. 🙂

“I think I’m going to coin another term: “ghost racism.” It’s racism that only those few adepts — like Abagond, for example — trained in the arcane arts of communicating with racism that’s long-dead, but still around haunting us all, can see. It’s really EVERYWHERE, you see, but only THEY can see it, and WE untrained, uneducated rubes all need simply to take their word for it, that even though there’s a MOUNTAIN of OBJECTIVE evidence against its existence, it’s REALLY right there and powerful as ever!”

Even in the 1960s whites had a hard time seeing racism:

Fact: In 1962, 85% of whites thought that black children in their community had just as good a chance of getting a good education as white children.

Source: The Gallup Organization, Gallup Poll Social Audit, 2001. Black-White Relations in the United States, 2001 Update, July 10: 7-9.

Fact: In 1969 nearly half of all whites (45%) believed that blacks had a better chance getting a good-paying job than they did.

Uncle Milton himself, on another thread, seriously argued that whites are right to be fearful of black men because of the higher black murder rate.

Uhhh link to that..? Seems like a serious paraphrasing and effectively an inadvertent straw man. As I remember I said the risk of murder was fairly low for most Americans but that typically in areas with high murder rates one is markedly more at risk for common crimes such as assault or robbery. From 2002 to 2010 I knew of 11 victims of violent crime. 7 of the incidents required hospitalization – in case of 8 people these incidents prompted them to move to other cities and in one case back to his home country (India). The common thread between all of these incidents was that all of perpetrators were younger black males. (I can discuss the incidents in detail with anyone via email if you don’t believe me… darabinovich – at – gmail.com ) Also in the same post I pointed out that I had modified my routine to avoid younger white males who were drinking. I used to like to go to rock and roll shows in the 90s in San Francisco but I ran into one too many drunk white guys who wanted to pick a fight with me. I was never assaulted but I don’t tolerate that kind of behavior. Would this mean I am against younger white males or alcohol..? No..but it does make me risk averse and I avoid risk when I can. (Idiotic and/or aggressive behavior on alcohol does seem to be a white thing..)

“I suspect the difference comes in the types of offenses rather than the number of offenses. For example. fighting and drugs are more likely to result in suspension than skipping class.”

Misdeeds by young black males are seen in a different light than those by young white males.

Young black males are seen as dangerous, as lacking compassion or morals, as pre-criminals.

With young white males it is seen as “errors of judgement”, “boys will be boys”, as something they will grow out of.

xPraetorius:
Nope. Sorry. Just more of your mystical, magical mind-reading. No one whom anyone takes seriously views the infractions differently when committed by one or the other-skinned persons.

Abagond:
You saw that even with Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman: Martin was a “thug” and Zimmerman was the innocent citizen, even though it was Zimmerman who had a record of violence and a loaded gun.

xPraetorius:
Quick question: if, as it turns out, Trayvon WAS a bit of a thug, and Zuimmerman WAS an overly zealous ordinary dude…what then? The “lean,” the stealing, the drugs, the fighting, the MMA, the need to see some kid “bleed more” does NOT speak well of Martin. Nor, by the way, was it allowed in court. The judge did her level best to make sure that the jurors saw NONE of that. Fine. That may be a decision in conformity with the law. However, the jury — despite NOT seeing ANY of that pro-Zimmerman stuff — acquitted anyway. It must have been REALLY obvious that Zimmerman acted in self-defense.

Abagond:
Whites get the benefit of the doubt, the presumption of innocence. Black males are presumed to be a threat, lacking further information.

xPraetorius:
Nope. Sorry. Just more of your mystical, magical mind-reading. No one whom anyone takes seriously views the infractions differently when committed by one or the other-skinned persons.

Abagond:
Uncle Milton himself, on another thread, seriously argued that whites are right to be fearful of black men because of the higher black murder rate. As if black men are feral animals or something. That is JUST the kind of thinking I am talking about.

xPraetorius:
@Abagond, @Abagond, @Abagond…EVERYONE knows that you avoid bad neighborhoods… Those who don’t get dead. If you want white people — or anyone, for that matter — to fail to look at life realistically, then you just need to stop asking people to jump to the moon. I’ll re-write your paragraph to be correct:

“Uncle Milton himself, on another thread, seriously argued that whites are right to be fearful of black men because of the higher black murder rate. As if there’s a higher black murder rate or something. That is JUST the kind of thinking I am talking about.” (the “feral animals” crack was more mystical, magical mind-reading, so illegitimate.)

Now, with THAT said, Uncle Milton could have said it differently also. Remember, Abagond and others, CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING (or nearly everything.) (*)

So, Abagond’s paragraph is REALLY more accurate like this:

“Uncle Milton himself, on another thread, seriously argued that whites are right to be fearful of black men, say in high-crime neighborhoods, because of the higher black murder rate. That is JUST the kind of thinking I am talking about.” And, of course, that thinking is perfectly legitimate…even YOU, Abagond, think like that in high-crime neighborhoods.

Best,

— x

(*) For example: which is better: (1) a black unemployment rate of 6%, or a black unemployment rate of 8%? Easy: there’s not enough information to answer the question. Example: if the black unemployment rate is 6% and SKYROCKETING, then it is worse than if the black unemployment rate is 8% but PLUMMETING. No statistic is static…they are ALL measures of trends moving in directions. You have to understand at LEAST the trend, or you know nothing at all useful. CONTEXT IS (nearly) EVERYTHING.

“I think I’m going to coin another term: “ghost racism.” It’s racism that only those few adepts — like Abagond, for example — trained in the arcane arts of communicating with racism that’s long-dead, but still around haunting us all, can see. It’s really EVERYWHERE, you see, but only THEY can see it, and WE untrained, uneducated rubes all need simply to take their word for it, that even though there’s a MOUNTAIN of OBJECTIVE evidence against its existence, it’s REALLY right there and powerful as ever!”

Even in the 1960s whites had a hard time seeing racism:

Fact: In 1962, 85% of whites thought that black children in their community had just as good a chance of getting a good education as white children.

Source: The Gallup Organization, Gallup Poll Social Audit, 2001. Black-White Relations in the United States, 2001 Update, July 10: 7-9.

Fact: In 1969 nearly half of all whites (45%) believed that blacks had a better chance getting a good-paying job than they did.

I agree completely! Thank goodness that’s no longer the case! And hasn’t BEEN the case SINCE the ’60’s.

At the risk of making this response too long, it’s precisely in the ’60’s when I was receiving an education that was chock full of history bemoaning white misdeeds with respect to black people. So, not ALL white people were afraid to confront white misdeeds.

Again, to pose the rhetorical question. Do you REALLY think that whites just woke up — AS A PEOPLE — one day and said, “Let’s just cut this the heck out. Let’s start making it up to the black people. Let’s start teaching how wrong we’ve been as WELL as the good things we’ve done.” Nope. That kind of people-wide change-of-heart is a long time in the making, as I’ve made clear. It means that, — AS IT’S HAPPENING — there will STILL be crimes, misdeeds and depredations. The point: white racism has been a dying beast for MORE THAN 200 YEARS, and you ought to have the honesty to acknowledge it.(*)

Now, I’m going to toss one more inflammatory log onto this fire. It’s not only white racism that has been dying for 200 years, but white prejudice of ANY kind. See, eg: legislation concerning, blacks, Hispanics, women, Japanese WWII internees, ruthenians, asians, vegetarians, allergics, non-smokers, gays, lgbtqqiaap, etc. Again, anything resembling a “bigoted” or “prejudiced” race — particularly a DOMINANT one! — could not POSSIBLY have promulgated that mountain of legislation.

All this is beyond dispute.

Also: I acknowledge — as some have mentioned before — that the white race will go away. Doesn’t bother me one bit. If “we” go away as a result of assimilation, that will be a GREAT thing. If “we” go away as a result of genocide, that will be a profoundly evil thing, but we WILL disappear. Guess what…world travel, human nature, the way of all things, etc. means that, in one very possible scenario, ALL races will go away, to be succeeded by a white-black-brown-red-yellow amalgamation of all races. Ummmm…Ok. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with that, as long as the resulting HUMAN race is one in which MOST humans are good, decent, kind-hearted, open-minded, people, unlike most participants to this blog.

As you might have guessed, I’m a bit of a prognosticator. The point, however, is that I DO — from time-to-time — try to see the larger picture. Abagond, BW, others: if you were any more myopic, you’d be completely blind.

Darn! I promised a short response!

One more quick thing: If I’ve already addressed a topic, or an objection, then from now on, I’ll use the phrase, or a variation thereof, “Already addressed. Re-read.” It’s plain that I’m the only one who has really paid any SERIOUS attention to what the others have said. It’s ALSO plain that others have not read the entire thread, my responses (many have admitted as much) or the previous one.

Some of the more moronic responses — example: the one crowing about the impending disappearance of the white race — DO allow for the surfacing of other interesting concepts, so I might tackle them, despite their moronia.

Best,

— x

(*) I suspect, however, that, BLACK racism is far from dead. I suspect further that there are precious few addressing it. Certainly there are none who hang around on THIS blog!

Herneith said:
Almost no one goes to prison for drug possession. People are arrested for drug dealing and plea bargain down to possession. Since most drug dealers are black most of those plea bargaining down to possession are black. But they still get prison. Legitimate possessions usually get a fine and probation.

This is bullshit. The person is charged by the amount of drugs on their person. If it exceeds a particular amount it becomes a trafficking charge regardless if the drugs were intended for their personal use. Abagond is not talking about someone being caught with a spliff or two here. What about the drug distributors? They aren’t the street dealers. There is a hierarchy in the drug dealing world and these petty drug dealers aren’t on top. Many of the people in wealthy communities have their drugs delivered to them much as one would have take-out food; hence they can ingest their drugs in the safety of their homes without fear of apprehension. Plus they have the luxury of top notch lawyers who, more often then not, get them off or into re-hab.

Black criminals have higher rates of recidivism. Personally, I don’t give a flying fig about criminals no matter what color they are. They shouldn’t have broken the law in the first place.

You are really dense aren’t you? He is not referring to whites and blacks with criminal backgrounds and similar educational, trades, or skill sets. He refers to whites with a criminal background getting call backs whereas the black men with no records and similar qualifications don’t. Capiche racist?

I suspect the difference comes in the types of offenses rather than the number of offenses. For example. fighting and drugs are more likely to result in suspension than skipping class

That’s all you have are suspicions. Of course white kids do nothing more than get caught with spliffs eh?

I find that implausible… I have read surveys that blacks deal drugs at rates from around 45% to 200% more than whites but I don’t take surveys about drug dealing seriously. Any serious drug dealer (someone who derives his income solely or predominantly from drug dealing..) would likely never touch a survey. It’s usually the wannabees that respond because they think it’s cool. (As in, hey I bought an once of weed and sold some to friends..I’m a drug dealer…)

By the way, this is coming from a white guy who most definitely was a drug dealer…although on an episodic basis. I grew Marijuana and once sold off 15 lbs in one week. Didn’t do it for long since the laws were changing rapidly (as in getting much more harsh and the police were getting wise and more active..) and drug users and smaller dealers tend to sleazy people. Making fast money has a way of coming back to bite you. (Unless you’re a Goldman Sachs trader..)

This is anecdotal experience (and highly dated..) but from what I saw almost all dealing was interracial. A drug dealer has to engender a bit of trust with their clients. Trust usually means a connection through a friend or acquaintance and most of ones friends in the US tend to be of the same race. By the mid-80s most white drug dealers had become extremely paranoid. I knew one successful dealer who had a Reagan bumper sticker and an American flag on his car and sported a military style haircut. Also he usually kept a bible somewhat in sight in his car. Paid his way through college and then some. He stopped completely after 5 years. By the mid-80s if a dealer wasn’t paranoid he usually ended up getting caught.

In small to midsize towns there are almost no open air drug markets…there were open air drug markets in parts of San Francisco in the late 80s and early 90s (Likely before but I wasn’t there then…) in the upper Haight you had a bunch of younger white kids allegedly selling LSD. (Never touched the stuff but supposedly over half the time it was regular paper..eg a scam for the tourists) In Dolores Park there were a number of Latino guys who sold weed and heroin. Towards the mid-90s basically these open markets were eliminated or at least reduced enough so I didn’t notice them anymore. Yet the open air markets of Hunter’s Point and West Oakland (Predominantly or heavily black areas..) continue to this day.

Omnipresent said:
xPratorius said: I trained the brown dudes who replaced me, but who couldn’t do the job, but who cost 75% less, so who cares… I DO know this topic. Very, VERY intimately.

I said this to you before but, clearly your managers did not get the brief on what you peeps in the U.S call Affirmative Action. But, poor management and sh*t managers and common the world over. 75% less, so who cares? You do, unsurpisingly but I reckon it has made you bitter and it is only human nature.

One might ask if you were as good a trainer as you seem to be saying, why is it that the people who replaced you couldnt do the job? Also do you think your own personal experience is representative of what happens ALL the time? This is what you seem to be saying.

I too know this topic intimately but in a different context to yours. In this case, it was white people who mismanaged, to the detriment of any PoC. They were resentful of strides to re-dress the balance in positive discrimination and wanted things to ‘stay the way they are’. I have seen this happen A LOT in one way or another. The only people who did not have a bad times were the ones who were willing to become clowns, because they were ‘safe’.

xPraetorius:
I’ve covered all this before. Actually, I’m an excellent trainer, but in the context of THIS particular story, there’s much more to say. I DO know the topic intimately. However, as Omnipresent points out, my personal anecdote is not relevant to the larger discussion.

I was wrong, and I accept and acknowledge the correction.

O said:
I said this to you before but, clearly your managers did not get the brief on what you peeps in the U.S call Affirmative Action. But, poor management and sh*t managers and common the world over. 75% less, so who cares? You do, unsurpisingly but I reckon it has made you bitter and it is only human nature.

xPraetorius:
Nope. I’m not bitter at all. You may not engage in magical mind-reading. Stop it.

Omnipresent:
I too know this topic intimately but in a different context to yours. In this case, it was white people who mismanaged, to the detriment of any PoC.

xPraetorius:
Ok…but you can’t use personal anecdotes either. I covered this above.

Omnipresent:
They were resentful of strides to re-dress the balance in positive discrimination and wanted things to ‘stay the way they are’.

Omnipresent:
The only people who did not have a bad times were the ones who were willing to become clowns, because they were ‘safe’.

xPraetorius:
Really, O? The ONLY ones? Ever? Or just in YOUR experience? Or Just in Montana? Or when? Where? All over the country? All through history? In EVERY company? Is it STILL that way? If so, when? Where? Is there recourse? Have you contacted anyone? Is the trend going up? Down? Sideways? For how long? What is the longer trend? Is there legislation against this? Are people fired when they bring this up? What do women think? Gays? How about the lgbtqqiaap? Is it happening to them? What about whites? Does it happen more, less or about the same to them?

To King: The way that the authorities deal with White drug use, and minority drug use in markedly different . http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/cops-ran-free-doritos-10-minutes-seattle-pot-235900570.html From the article you linked: Not only delicious, but educational, each bag displayed a sticker of do’s and don’ts of I-502, Washington’s ballot measure that legalized the possession of marijuana in November. EG it’s now legal and is being treated in a manner similar to alcohol which ahs constraints on it’s legal use. Enforcing laws against substances like Marijuana is just stupid in places where alcohol is legal. (Drugs such as Cocaine, Heroin, and Crystal Meth.. are a very different story in my opinion…) And FWIW I’ve seen plenty of People of Color at “smoke-ins” although it is true the majority were white. Also as a white guy there is no f*cking way I’ll be smoking weed in front of a cop in a place like Oklahoma or Alabama. (For the record I haven’t smoked weed in decades.. I am naturally tired and paranoid enough as it is without having to pay for it..)

In low income minority neighborhoods, drug sales are more conspicuous. Obvious street-corner drug sales are where they get the most complaints because it is visible.

Yeah. Standing on the street corner selling cocaine is a lot more conspicuous than selling a few ounces of weed to a friend.

Therefore, eighteen year old black kids with no money take much bigger risks and get caught much more often.

I hear that McDonald’s is hiring.

That skews the numbers to make White people believe that, in fact, Whites are not dealing drugs at the same or higher rates than Blacks.

Maybe if drug gangs stopped shooting people they wouldn’t be so conspicuous.

”

herneith

This is bullshlt. The person is charged by the amount of drugs on their person. If it exceeds a particular amount it becomes a trafficking charge regardless if the drugs were intended for their personal use.

Hear ye! Hear ye! Her royal highness Herneith, princess of feces and heir to the duchess of excrement hath pronounced it “bullshlt.”

Yeah. Dealers are charged according to how much they have on them. Then they plea bargain to a lesser charge of “possession” and go to prison. Those with smaller quantities are charged with “possession”, plead guilty to possession and get a fine/probation.

He refers to whites with a criminal background getting call backs whereas the black men with no records and similar qualifications don’t. Capiche racist?

If you don’t break the law in the first place then it’s not a problem. Capiche?

That’s all you have are suspicions.

Abagond provided a source. Why don’t you look it up and show me where my suspicions are mistaken?

”

abagond

Young black males are seen as dangerous, as lacking compassion or morals, as pre-criminals.

I wonder if all those homicides and aggravated assaults have anything to do with it?

grin and bear it said:
Abagond? Why give xPraetorius a platform? And why allow him/her/it/them to usurp your threads? He/she/it/they have a blog on which to spout their brand of nonsense, so why give them free reign to do it here? And why devote an entire post to them?

Interestingly, judging by a random sampling of blog posts on that site, xPraetorius doesn’t seem to have any sort of audience at all — or even friends and family who care one way or the other about whatever they have to say — if the comment sections are any indication: they’re completely empty. No “cosigns,” no “dittos,” no “I agree,” or even the occasional “you must be out of your mind.” Not even any Facebook likes. That means xPraetorius “readers” feel that blog is irrelevant, unintelligible, or uninspiring, or its “readers” are simply non-existent. I suspect they’re trying to piggyback on your success, glom some readers and blog hits based almost entirely on your articles. I say make them build their own damn audience, and stop worrying about what’s going on over here.

– * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * –
xPraetorius:
Thanks, g-a-b-i. I’m glad you were able to ferret out (1) why we post what we post, (2) what our readers think and how many there are, (Interestingly, you ignore the most important thing: WHO they are — the only thing that REALLY counts) (3) what we track and make public to the likes of you, (4) what the “Facebook likes” widget represents (think about that one for a while), (5) that you were unable to comprehend the content (*). I’m glad you, like so many others around here have that mystical, magical talent of mind-reading! Good for you! Why don’t you put it to constructive use and tell Obama what that dirtbag in Syria is going to do next?

I’ll sum it up for you: we are not really in it for the clicks, or the likes. However, I’ll give you something titillating, just for the fun of it. Neither you, nor Abagond, nor BW, has ANY IDEA where my blog is read, or, most importantly, by whom. If you — and others — did, you all just MIGHT try to write more carefully an dless stupidly.

Our blog is actually a lot more successful than we had ever hoped. There are a bunch of race addicts like Abagond out there…if we need to use them, we will. However, since we have some continuity with Abagond and BW, we continue to work with their content and their audience. But, if you want more hints as to our REAL goals for the blog, you can look in this thread, in Abagond’s Hitler thread, and in an argument we had with BrothaWolf a while back on his blog (about Paula Deen).

No more hints, gabi! Enjoy!

Best

— x

(*) Again, we write for an audience who, it is assumed, has attained a fairly high education level. You’re likely not there yet. Are you young, or did you not do well in school?

I am surprised because I would never take you for a weed smoker (in the past that is or now for that matter).

@xPraetorius

“(*) Again, we write for an audience who, it is assumed, has attained a fairly high education level. You’re likely not there yet. Are you young, or did you not do well in school?”—Proving all the more to be a hypocrite.

” You might achieve better, less confusing dialogue, if you were to address your remarks to someone in particular.”—If you would notice the quotes you will see who said it and thus figure who she was walking to.

The error in your reasoning is that Proposition A is dependent on the truth of Proposition B.

In order to state that blacks can succeed by following your points, you presuppose a hidden premise: that your 5 points, not race, determines success. However, this is clearly question-begging for racism itself is the very issue in dispute.

But it gets even worse: in your thesis, these 5 points appear to be an arbitrary number. Why not 10 points? Why not 20 points? How did you arrive at 5 points, and what makes them objective? How do you plausibly know one can succeed if they follow just these 5 arbitrary points?

For the sake of argument, even if we assume your worldview is right in that racism is not a problem, one can still challenge your 5 points on the foregoing grounds alone.

Second, please provide the criterion to distinguish a “big” problem from not a “big” problem in your model. Furthermore, please cite evidence to support the validity of this criterion.

Unless you are able to identify and evidentially support the criterion used to establish these differences, you are merely stipulating terms with no contextual framework under which these terms make sense.

Omipresent said: I said this to you before but, clearly your managers did not get the brief on what you peeps in the U.S call Affirmative Action. But, poor management and sh*t managers and common the world over. 75% less, so who cares? You do, unsurpisingly but I reckon it has made you bitter and it is only human nature.

xPraetorius: Nope. I’m not bitter at all. You may not engage in magical mind-reading. Stop it.

What, you arent pi$$ed off that someone who YOU trained to do a job replaced you? That you became surplus to requirements? Anyone would be resentful and bitter. Its human nature. I dont have to be a mind reader to gauge that. It resonates from your comments about Affirmative Action.

Omnipresent:I too know this topic intimately but in a different context to yours. In this case, it was white people who mismanaged, to the detriment of any PoC.

xPraetorius: Ok…but you can’t use personal anecdotes either. I covered this above.

Bearing in mind that my ‘anecdote’ was in response to YOUR example I can and will bring this up if I feel necessary.

Omnipresent:They were resentful of strides to re-dress the balance in positive discrimination and wanted things to ‘stay the way they are’.

xPraetorius:Again, magical mind-reading. Not legitimate as argument. Cut it out.

Mate, you’re making assumptions. I KNOW because they told me. I wouldnt use it as an example if I didnt know for definate.

Omnipresent:The only people who did not have a bad times were the ones who were willing to become clowns, because they were ‘safe’.

xPraetorius:Really, O? The ONLY ones? Ever? Or just in YOUR experience? Or Just in Montana? Or when? Where? All over the country? All through history? In EVERY company? Is it STILL that way? If so, when? Where? Is there recourse? Have you contacted anyone? Is the trend going up? Down? Sideways? For how long? What is the longer trend? Is there legislation against this? Are people fired when they bring this up? What do women think? Gays? How about the lgbtqqiaap? Is it happening to them? What about whites? Does it happen more, less or about the same to them?

I am not talking about everywhere, neither did I imply it, only in THIS particular situation. Sorry if it grieves you but, people are unpleasant at times and do behave in personally motivated ways. If you dont believe this then well, you are in for a really big shock in life. As for your other questions, i’m sure you are the Oracle and are able to answer absolutely and categorically.

xPrae said: Omnipresent: your posts have been among the least pathetic in these two threads; don’t blow it now

Let me finish by saying this. I am having an honest discussion here with you. Dont spoil it by retorting to most everything with sarcasm. It reminds me of dealing with my teenager and it is not something that I come on to this blog for. I afford you a level of respect which I hope you will reciprocate.

I am surprised because I would never take you for a weed smoker (in the past that is or now for that matter).

@xPraetorius

“(*) Again, we write for an audience who, it is assumed, has attained a fairly high education level. You’re likely not there yet. Are you young, or did you not do well in school?”—Proving all the more to be a hypocrite.

xPraetorius:
Oh? How’s that? Our writing IS directed at an educated audience. Believe me, I Hhve plenty of feedback indicating that we do NOT attract or maintain a lot of low-information, or less educated readers. This is by design.

sharina:
” You might achieve better, less confusing dialogue, if you were to address your remarks to someone in particular.”

If you would notice the quotes you will see who said it and thus figure who she was walking to.

xPraetorius:
@Sharina: I saw the quotes…providing only the quotes requires the responder to go look back to who made the quote. As the pace around here can be quick, that’s an unnecessary imposition on the time. As you know I can’t respond to everyone. If I have to do extra work to determine to whom I’m responding, or even whether the person is addressing me, then I might end up simply moving on. My suggestion was purely practical. I DO try to make it obvious TO WHOM I’m responding, as a courtesy to allow them maximal convenience in responding back.

Having re-read what I have said I actually do state that I have seen the scenario I described to you played out before when I said this – I hold my hands up, I made an error.

I have seen this happen A LOT in one way or another. The only people who did not have a bad times were the ones who were willing to become clowns, because they were ‘safe’.

I am still not saying this happens EVERYWHERE I cannot possibly know that of course but, I have been in employment for 20 odd years and I have seen this happen more than I care to. It is not always towards black people but the type of roles I had afforded a certain amount of confidences to be shared and this is how I came to know about these situations.

“Oh? How’s that? “—I was hoping you would not seriously ask this as it is quite obvious. You put a big stink about the fact that you were insulting posts and the content there in, but claimed victory simply because people had resulted to insulting you. Yet here you are insulting someone based on their insult of your blog and the content there in.

“I saw the quotes…providing only the quotes requires the responder to go look back to who made the quote. As the pace around here can be quick, that’s an unnecessary imposition on the time.”–Then the simply answer to this would have been to simply move on. Or use the find feature on your explorer.

Omnipresent said:
I said this to you before but, clearly your managers did not get the brief on what you peeps in the U.S call Affirmative Action. But, poor management and sh*t managers and common the world over. 75% less, so who cares? You do, unsurpisingly but I reckon it has made you bitter and it is only human nature.

xPraetorius(1): Nope. I’m not bitter at all. You may not engage in magical mind-reading. Stop it.

What, you arent pi$$ed off that someone who YOU trained to do a job replaced you? That you became surplus to requirements? Anyone would be resentful and bitter. Its human nature. I dont have to be a mind reader to gauge that. It resonates from your comments about Affirmative Action.

xPraetorius(2):
Nope. I’m not ticked off. Or bitter. Economics is economics is economics is economics.

Omnipresent(1):I too know this topic intimately but in a different context to yours. In this case, it was white people who mismanaged, to the detriment of any PoC.

xPraetorius(1): Ok…but you can’t use personal anecdotes either. I covered this above.

O(2):
Bearing in mind that my ‘anecdote’ was in response to YOUR example I can and will bring this up if I feel necessary.

xPraetorius(2)
Yep. And, you’ll note, I accepted your correction.

Omnipresent(1):
They were resentful of strides to re-dress the balance in positive discrimination and wanted things to ‘stay the way they are’.

O(2)Mate, you’re making assumptions. I KNOW because they told me. I wouldnt use it as an example if I didnt know for definate.

xPraetorius(2):
Fine, however, Rule #2 applies as well: This is a personal anecdote, so irrelevant. Scope and context, please.

Omnipresent(1):The only people who did not have a bad times were the ones who were willing to become clowns, because they were ‘safe’.

xPraetorius(1):Really, O? The ONLY ones? Ever? Or just in YOUR experience? Or Just in Montana? Or when? Where? All over the country? All through history? In EVERY company? Is it STILL that way? If so, when? Where? Is there recourse? Have you contacted anyone? Is the trend going up? Down? Sideways? For how long? What is the longer trend? Is there legislation against this? Are people fired when they bring this up? What do women think? Gays? How about the lgbtqqiaap? Is it happening to them? What about whites? Does it happen more, less or about the same to them?

O(2):
I am not talking about everywhere, neither did I imply it, only in THIS particular situation. Sorry if it grieves you but, people are unpleasant at times and do behave in personally motivated ways. If you dont believe this then well, you are in for a really big shock in life. As for your other questions, i’m sure you are the Oracle and are able to answer absolutely and categorically.

xPraetorius(2):
Agreed, but, as discussed above, if these are isolated incidents, then there is no larger problem, as I’ve been stating for a long time. By the way, you’ll notice that for the duration of ALL these threads, I have engaged in ONLY a couple of incidents of absolute and categorical declarations…my infamous “No white people ever say” and “Never has been (a will to empire)” remarks. I apologized for them, corrected and clarified, and didn’t do it again. You can look that up. (*) I think that you’ll agree, I’ve done a PRETTY good job — if not absolutely perfect — job of steering clear of the absolute remarks. In an interesting note: every time I DID engage in the absolute or the categorical, someone else shot back with the isolated and the personal in an attempt to shoot me down. In doing so, they neatly made my point for me. Thanks for the opportunity to point that out.

xPrae(1) said: Omnipresent: your posts have been among the least pathetic in these two threads; don’t blow it now

O(2): Let me start by saying this. I am having an honest discussion here with you. Dont spoil it by retorting to most everything with sarcasm. It reminds me of dealing with my teenager and it is not something that I come on to this blog for. I afford you a level of respect which I hope you will reciprocate.

xPraetorius(2):
Chastisement accepted. You WILL admit, however, that I DO put up with a whole LOT of ummmm…guff around here. Sometimes, it’s tempting to respond in kind. I assume this is your commitment not to engage in the gratuitous mud-slinging that so many use here, and I make that same commitment to you.

Best,

— x

(*) I remain the ONLY only one EVER to have out-and-out admitted to having committed an error in the voluminous content of BOTH threads. It’s interesting that the other commenters here are convinced they have not made one single, solitary, teentsy-weentsy error EVER in all this back and forth. Or none of them is man enough to admit it. One or the other.

“Oh? How’s that? “—I was hoping you would not seriously ask this as it is quite obvious. You put a big stink about the fact that you were insulting posts and the content there in, but claimed victory simply because people had resulted to insulting you. Yet here you are insulting someone based on their insult of your blog and the content there in.

“I saw the quotes…providing only the quotes requires the responder to go look back to who made the quote. As the pace around here can be quick, that’s an unnecessary imposition on the time.”–Then the simply answer to this would have been to simply move on. Or use the find feature on your explorer.

*No clue if this is off-topic, but it was mentioned (I forgot by who)
Sweet Jesus, how did I miss this??

“She acknowledged a TRUE statistic: a “black child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African American President.”

1) I would like to see where on earth she got the numbers from. Given the sparse nature of records during slavery. Slaves had a hard time finding their families after slavery for this very reason. This is basic American history. Not until 1869, when the Radicals assumed control of the legislative process, did black marital and parental rights receive legal justification.

Star Park, conservative activist admits this:
“Now we don’t have clear data getting to your question about what black family life looked like during slavery as what the attacks are now even against people like Michele Bachmann who signed on to a document that said the black family was more intact than it is today. But we do know the reason we don’t have clear data of course is because only *some* data made it through the civil war.”

We have accounts from slaves saying that it was common for children to be separated from their mothers at an early age and most of them never knew their fathers. (Frederick Douglass, Nat Turner, etc). It is more likely they had informal arrangements if they had any family structure at all.

It may not even be true that the children lived with the father and mother. A woman/wife may have been owned by one plantation and her man/husband was owned by another plantation and they saw each other when they could but they *didn’t* live together.

2) I need her to define a two parent home. Black slaves were not legally allowed to get married in any American colony or state.
If (not if, she has to be) she is counting unmarried couples (among the slaves) her point means nothing. The 70% statistic cited today is for OOW births, counts couples who live together unmarried with children, and says nothing about the involvement of the father in the lives of the children.
In fact of that 70% statistic, 37% of non-marital black men live with their children and girlfriend. That drops the number to 33%.
Now, I’m more traditional, so this is still disturbing to me. But marriage is becoming less of a trend these days. The family structure is changing across the board.
In fact, studies have shown of the reminder, black fathers who don’t live with the mother of their children, are up to 50% more likely to be involved in the lives of their non-marital children than any other race. And this does not just include child support, but visitation, other/extra monetary support, and watching and monitoring the kids.
I would agree that the marriage rate is a problem, and I do believe that children born in marriage are more stable. But, the 70% statistic does not tell except that these women popped out children unmarried.
Anyway, about the slavery/family life thing, since they admitted they don’t have clear record, they have no way of really knowing. Given the extremely high risk of getting sold off, or having a white father who would never claim you, and being forced into infidelity to produce more slaves, I think it is safe to say this statement is ridiculous.

3) And what about the slave children that were the product of the slave master and a slave? Modern black Americans have about 30% European in them, so a lot of mixing was going on. Maybe because that slave child lived with the master, that counts as a two parent home, lol?

4) The source that they cited is from 1880 to 1910, not during slavery.

“(*) I remain the ONLY only one EVER to have out-and-out admitted to having committed an error in the voluminous content of BOTH threads. It’s interesting that the other commenters here are convinced they have not made one single, solitary, teentsy-weentsy error EVER in all this back and forth. Or none of them is man enough to admit it. One or the other.”

This is another one of your fantasies that you keep repeating. You are hardly the only one to do this. In my own case I corrected myself twice: the number of copies sold of Madison Grant’s book and that the Tiananmen Square massacre was not “tribalistic” (inter-ethnic).

*No clue if this is off-topic, but it was mentioned (I forgot by who)
Sweet Jesus, how did I miss this??

“She acknowledged a TRUE statistic: a “black child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African American President.”

1) I would like to see where on earth she got the numbers from. Given the sparse nature of records during slavery. Slaves had a hard time finding their families after slavery for this very reason. This is basic American history. Not until 1869, when the Radicals assumed control of the legislative process, did black marital and parental rights receive legal justification.

Star Park, conservative activist admits this:
“Now we don’t have clear data getting to your question about what black family life looked like during slavery as what the attacks are now even against people like Michele Bachmann who signed on to a document that said the black family was more intact than it is today. But we do know the reason we don’t have clear data of course is because only *some* data made it through the civil war.”

We have accounts from slaves saying that it was common for children to be separated from their mothers at an early age and most of them never knew their fathers. (Frederick Douglass, Nat Turner, etc). It is more likely they had informal arrangements if they had any family structure at all.

It may not even be true that the children lived with the father and mother. A woman/wife may have been owned by one plantation and her man/husband was owned by another plantation and they saw each other when they could but they *didn’t* live together.

2) I need her to define a two parent home. Black slaves were not legally allowed to get married in any American colony or state.
If (not if, she has to be) she is counting unmarried couples (among the slaves) her point means nothing. The 70% statistic cited today is for OOW births, counts couples who live together unmarried with children, and says nothing about the involvement of the father in the lives of the children.
In fact of that 70% statistic, 37% of non-marital black men live with their children and girlfriend. That drops the number to 33%.
Now, I’m more traditional, so this is still disturbing to me. But marriage is becoming less of a trend these days. The family structure is changing across the board.
In fact, studies have shown of the reminder, black fathers who don’t live with the mother of their children, are up to 50% more likely to be involved in the lives of their non-marital children than any other race. And this does not just include child support, but visitation, other/extra monetary support, and watching and monitoring the kids.
I would agree that the marriage rate is a problem, and I do believe that children born in marriage are more stable. But, the 70% statistic does not tell except that these women popped out children unmarried.
Anyway, about the slavery/family life thing, since they admitted they don’t have clear record, they have no way of really knowing. Given the extremely high risk of getting sold off, or having a white father who would never claim you, and being forced into infidelity to produce more slaves, I think it is safe to say this statement is ridiculous.

3) And what about the slave children that were the product of the slave master and a slave? Modern black Americans have about 30% European in them, so a lot of mixing was going on. Maybe because that slave child lived with the master, that counts as a two parent home, lol?

4) The source that they cited is from 1880 to 1910, not during slavery.

xPraetorius:
Good points, and valid speculation, prompting greater research and understanding…but, speculation none the less. I believe that I’m STILL the only one to say: “CONTEXT is (nearly) EVERYTHING.”

I DO point out that there remains nothing that indicates that Michele Bachmann has ever tried to justify or downplay or put racism or slavery in a positive light. This is beyond dispute. I also know that Star Parker and Michele Bachmann remain good friends, so apparently, if Michele misspoke, Star is okay with it.

And, again, the various points pertaining to long past history are perfectly irrelevant in the context of THIS debate, which is: the extent to which white racism is a problem today. I remain convinced that white racism is just not a big problem today. These constant references to long ago history kind of bolster my point. After all, if there were convincing examples of white racism TODAY, then YOU all wouldn’t CONSTANTLY be going back into deep, dark, long-gone history. 🙂

BrothaWolf wants so desperately to catch me in a racial epithet he can just taste it! Here’s his exact quote from my blog: “I’ll just await for the day that you will slip up and use a racial epithet and then deny that its racist.”

Ok…but even if he WERE to catch me, what does that mean? He doesn’t know me from Adam. Maybe I’ve donated hundreds of millions of dollars to kids of all races around the world; maybe I’ve gone into deepest, darkest Congo and worked with missionaries installing mosquito netting to prevent malaria; maybe I’ve saved hundreds of thousands of lives by personally buying vaccines, then helping to distribute and deliver them to medical personnel in Africa; maybe I’ve gone into inner cities and distributed educational scholarships to deserving black children so they can break the cycle of poverty; maybe I’ve employed thousands of black employees because I figured they could do the job; and maybe I’ve sat here and patiently tried to reason with concrete-headed, cantankerous curmudgeons like BW and Abagond, only to be treated like racist scum. The point: First: BW won’t catch me in a racial epithet — I’ve never used one in more than fifty years of life.

Second: BW just doesn’t know. Like the rest of the race grievance industry, he’s ready to hang his hat on that one glorious, golden, racial epithet that just might INSTANTLY erase the mountains of good, the thousands of lives saved, the jobs, the education, the food, the vaccines, the mosquito netting and the humanity I described above, but that will allow BW to sink back into that well-worn, comfortable Noble Victim mattress, while tucking tuck that ratty, old White Racism quilt up under his chin, as he places his hoary old head on the I’m-Right-‘Cause-I’m-Black pillow, all while the arthritic, mangy, old black cat — IfYouChallengeMeYou’reRacist — settles down next to him. 🙂

“(*) I remain the ONLY only one EVER to have out-and-out admitted to having committed an error in the voluminous content of BOTH threads. It’s interesting that the other commenters here are convinced they have not made one single, solitary, teentsy-weentsy error EVER in all this back and forth. Or none of them is man enough to admit it. One or the other.”

This is another one of your fantasies that you keep repeating. You are hardly the only one to do this. In my own case I corrected myself twice: the number of copies sold of Madison Grant’s book and that the Tiananmen Square massacre was not “tribalistic” (inter-ethnic).

Your corrections, however, were trivial in the overall picture. Mine, however, forced me to take care as to how I expressed things going forward, being sure to avoid any kind of exaggeration that might be misinterpreted by this, shall we say, “touchy” crowd, who parses every word looking for racism, racism, racism, racism, and more racism. It HAS forced me to consider pretty much every word I’ve sent up.

Your correction said the logical equivalent of: I was wrong; there weren’t 1,000 instances of tribalism, but 999. Not really a correction. As regards the Grant book…I’ve hunted around, there’s nothing to suggest that the wikipedia entry was incorrect as to total sales. Wikipedia said 17,000…you settled on something like 1.5 million. The nearly 1,000 to one discrepancy needs to be resolved. I suspect that 17,000 for such an obscure topic is more likely. 1.5 million book sales are numbers normally reserved for a Tom Clancy fiction bestseller.

Still and all, I accept your correction. You have made some small corrections. My new point: One, and only one person has offered ME any indication at all that he might have been in error. That was Abagond, whose correction was largely meaningless. Really though, Abagond, the loneliness of your one trivial correction (and the non-trivial non-correction correction about the book) kind of bolsters my point even more. I WAS looking for someone to man up and apologize for calling me a racist, which, really is hate speech, if you think about it.

Question though…are you just including white or those that identify (people consider) like Italian, Russian, or Irish?

– * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * –
xPraetorius:
@Sharina: Again these are meaningless without context. If for each of these I can find 100 GoC’s (Gangs of Color 🙂 ), or GoC’s with many times more numbers, then this dozen or so gangs proves my point that white racism is not a big problem in America today.

You STARTED to indicate that you understood that greater context is needed…for some gangs, nationality trumps all other considerations. Can’t really put these in the list. Other questions. Did any of these gangs start up because other gangs were making them miserable due to racism or other considerations? What are the trends? Is their membership going up, down, not moving, etc.? Is this a list of a dozen, while last year there were 100? Or is this a list of a dozen, while last year there were three? You get the drift. The list, as is, is meaningless.

Having re-read what I have said I actually do state that I have seen the scenario I described to you played out before when I said this – I hold my hands up, I made an error.

I have seen this happen A LOT in one way or another. The only people who did not have a bad times were the ones who were willing to become clowns, because they were ‘safe’.

I am still not saying this happens EVERYWHERE I cannot possibly know that of course but, I have been in employment for 20 odd years and I have seen this happen more than I care to. It is not always towards black people but the type of roles I had afforded a certain amount of confidences to be shared and this is how I came to know about these situations.

xPraetorius:
Well, said Omnipresent! I appreciate your candor. You do see, I hope, that in correcting yourself, you’ve considerably changed the scope and meaning of your ORIGINAL statement that sought to extend your personal experiences to describe the global situation. I’v e been guilty of it myself, and had to correct myself. One does live and learn!

See lists kindly provided for you above. And that wasn’t really the the point. The point is, what are you doing to stop White gangs from drug dealing? Absolutely Nothing!!!! So, show the way… lead by example! Stop the White gangs! (I’ll wait).

“@Sharina: Again these are meaningless without context. If for each of these I can find 100 GoC’s (Gangs of Color 🙂 ), or GoC’s with many times more numbers, then this dozen or so gangs proves my point that white racism is not a big problem in America today.

You STARTED to indicate that you understood that greater context is needed…for some gangs, nationality trumps all other considerations. Can’t really put these in the list. Other questions. Did any of these gangs start up because other gangs were making them miserable due to racism or other considerations? What are the trends? Is their membership going up, down, not moving, etc.? Is this a list of a dozen, while last year there were 100? Or is this a list of a dozen, while last year there were three? You get the drift. The list, as is, is meaningless.”—I know your intent is not to make a fool out of yourself, but you jump into things and make them out to be something they are not just like one.

It was not to make any real point for one. It was just to get a fair list of gangs on the table..period point blank. If I wanted to make a point I know clear and well how to elaborate rather than using the old throw it out and let people guess move.

This will be yet another scenario where you jump to tell me what I think mean or believe (as if I don’t have the amazing ability to think for myself).

The error in your reasoning is that Proposition A is dependent on the truth of Proposition B.

In order to state that blacks can succeed by following your points, you presuppose a hidden premise: that your 5 points, not race, determines success. However, this is clearly question-begging for racism itself is the very issue in dispute.

xPraetorius:
@TS: You’re not too far off…Actually it’s a thought exercise, to which, if the answer is “yes,” then: If Proposition A, then Proposition B. If the answer is “no.” then: If not Proposition A, then not Proposition B. You see the difference, right? Again, the “five points” make no assertions. They invite you to ask yourself: “If a black person (1) gets an education, (2) speaks well, (3) works hard, (4) interacts well with others and (5) presents him or herself more or less normally, then can he or she succeed in America?” Again, if your answer to yourself is, “yes.” then Proposition B — “Racism is no longer a “big” problem” — is true. If your answer to yourself is “no,” then in your mind, Proposition B is false.

BrothaWolf agreed that HIS answer to Proposition A was “yes,” but then said that Proposition B was NOT true; did NOT flow logically from his “yes” response. I dispute that conclusion.

TS:
But it gets even worse: in your thesis, these 5 points appear to be an arbitrary number. Why not 10 points? Why not 20 points? How did you arrive at 5 points, and what makes them objective? How do you plausibly know one can succeed if they follow just these 5 arbitrary points?

xPraetorius:
I figured that I needed only THOSE five points for the thought exercise. It WAS originally four points…I added the fifth point a couple of weeks ago. It might change again, if I decide that further clarification is necessary. The “five points” were born, if you will, on the spur of the moment on Brotha Wolf’s blog in an argument there several weeks ago.

TS:
For the sake of argument, even if we assume your worldview is right in that racism is not a problem, one can still challenge your 5 points on the foregoing grounds alone.

xPraetorius:
If my conclusion that white racism is not a big problem is correct, then I don’t care if anyone challenges the “five points.” At that point, I will have “won the war, but lost the battle,” to paraphrase an oldie but a goodie. I’m okay with that.

TS:
Second, please provide the criterion to distinguish a “big” problem from not a “big” problem in your model. Furthermore, please cite evidence to support the validity of this criterion.

xPraetorius:
Bravo! First valid, important question in a LOOOOOOONG time!!! To paraphrase TS: what makes ME the authority on “big”?!? I agree, I am NOT the be all, end all for the definition of “big.” Again, though, the five points aren’t meant to define “big.” They make the following hypothesis — and I’ll summarize to avoid all the extra verbiage: “If TS’s Proposition A, then white racism is not a big problem in America.” I’m pretty willing to stipulate to just about any definition of “big” that the entire audience for this web site uses… if, that is, they eliminate all the usual insignificant fluff — like personal anecdotes, and context-less statistics. I reserve the right to change that if someone comes up with a definition for “big” that looks a lot to me like “little.” Great question, Ts! Maybe you really ARE a TruthSeeker…I was beginning to wonder.

One more quick thing, TS, we ARE talking about BIG things here. Many commenters have said essentially: “Here’s MY isolated, little thing, with no context or scope, and it proves my BIG thing and DISproves YOUR big thing.” Of course, I’ve used a LOT of words to try patiently to explain to them that the little things can’t be extrapolated across the big things, but few have accepted that. Look, especially, at BrothaWolf’s posts here, and his posts on my blog.

TS:
Unless you are able to identify and evidentially support the criterion used to establish these differences, you are merely stipulating terms with no contextual framework under which these terms make sense.

xPraetorius:
Can’t deny that! Got me there! However, neither you, nor anyone else here, has asked me what my goals are in hanging in here against a pretty large and unruly crowd. Do you even know what those goals are, and whether or not I’ve achieved them? I HAVE stated it before, and I think if you were to find it, you might agree that this is all working out quite nicely.

There have been a few so far that has made no point. They were discussing gangs. White gangs at that and I thought it would only be fair if a list was actually provided. Frankly it does not matter the skin color of a gang member as they are dangerous none the less.

Furthermore those list of questions you gave can be ones that can be asked of black or Mexican gang members as well, but I guess there is only a logical explanation and reasoning for white gang members. *end sarcasm*

See lists kindly provided for you above. And that wasn’t really the the point. The point is, what are you doing to stop White gangs from drug dealing? Absolutely Nothing!!!! So, show the way… lead by example! Stop the White gangs! (I’ll wait).

xPraetorius:
@King:

First question: What exactly are you expecting from DJ here? That he just run out and “stop white gangs from drug dealing?” Where armies have failed before, DJ’s going to take care of it all? Lol…Oooooookaaaayyy…

Second question: How do you know he’s NOT trying to do that?!? I’m guessing you don’t know.

First point: Your point is perfectly counter-balanced by DJ’s ability now to challenge you to do the same as you challenged him to do.

Absolutely. I lead by example by not using drugs — including alcohol and tobacco. I lead by example by not listening to rap, going to clubs, having illegitimate kids, breaking the law or tolerating those who do. I lead by example by mowing my yard, maintaining my home and even washing my vehicles. I lead by example by being involved in the community. And last but not least by shunning those who can’t keep their shlt straight.

You might ask what all that has to do with drugs and gangs. Everything. It’s called “draining the swamp”. Blacks do the opposite. It’s all about being cool and not “snitching”. It’s all about blaming others for your problems and then saying “but white e does it too!” It’s all about hating the police and always taking the side of thugs and criminals.

Whites who can’t get it together are looked down on. Blacks who do are called “sell outs”. I suppose whites and blacks both lead by example. Only whites lead with the right example and blacks lead with the wrong one. Perhaps that’s why blacks have astronomical crime rates and whites don’t.

“Blacks do the opposite. It’s all about being cool and not “snitching”. It’s all about blaming others for your problems and then saying “but white e does it too!” It’s all about hating the police and always taking the side of thugs and criminals.”–Interesting sums of stereotypes regarding what you believe blacks do.

I think Uncle Milton actually mentions this once (I was shocked too mind you) that blacks actually call the cops quite often for assistance. Whether they come or not is another story.

I don’t remember the last time I heard a black person blame anyone for their problems. Oh wait their was this one black girl but she was not favored upon. As for whites do it too…..well they do, but then again who cares right?

Again see the first thing I said regarding this hating the police thing.

I must live on another planet. These stereotypical black people I keep hearing about that are suppose to encompass the modern day black person I have only seen on movies like boys in the hood or juice.

sharina:
I don’t remember the last time I heard a black person blame anyone for their problems. Oh wait their was this one black girl but she was not favored upon. As for whites do it too…..well they do, but then again who cares right?

xPraetorius:
@sharina, @sharina, @sharina…you KNOW I love you don’t you? But Abagond, and BrothaWolf, and their ENTIRE entourage are ALL about blaming white people for their problems! It’s ALL due to white racism, remember? Heck, they’re practically about NOTHING else! They couldn’t write about a METEOR hitting the earth without making it a racial incident! For them, GRAVITY is a freakin’ white conspiracy preventing blacks from flying!

I don’t know the little girl story, and I TRULY don’t recall EVER hearing white people blaming their problems on anyone else. That WOULD be a strange phenomenon indeed! I suspect that any white person who tried to suggest that some other ethnicity was responsible for any global white problems would get laughed off the scene pronto!

xPraetorius:
Funny, off-topic story: Among my several hobbies is juggling. I’m an expert juggler, though not world class.

You can find some of my juggling videos on YouTube…look for some with LOTS of views. When I first began to learn to juggle, some friends of mine and I practiced together, and we called ourselves “the Juggolos” (“o” instead of “a” and meant to remind one of “gigolos.” We were young, handsome, and full of ourselves at the time. Now, we’re all just handsome. 🙂 ). Of course this was years before the “Juggalos” arrived on the scene, meaning something very different.

“@sharina, @sharina, @sharina…you KNOW I love you don’t you? But Abagond, and BrothaWolf, and their ENTIRE entourage are ALL about blaming white people for their problems! It’s ALL due to white racism, remember? Heck, they’re practically about NOTHING else! They couldn’t write about a METEOR hitting the earth without making it a racial incident! For them, GRAVITY is a freakin’ white conspiracy preventing blacks from flying!”—-I don’t know Abagond or Brothawolf in real life to tell you if they are black or white or Asian. I was speaking for in my area, but i will be sure to elaborate on that next time to avoid confusion. I thought it was clear with the heard considering I can’t hear the bloggers just read.

“I don’t know the little girl story, and I TRULY don’t recall EVER hearing white people blaming their problems on anyone else. That WOULD be a strange phenomenon indeed! I suspect that any white person who tried to suggest that some other ethnicity was responsible for any global white problems would get laughed off the scene pronto! “—Huh? I am glad you have not heard a white person in your life blame others for problems, but that does not mean it is such a “strange phenomenon” that it has not happened. For example white men who blame their lack of ability to get a job on affirmative action (that used to be a big one at one time). Oh and let’s not forget this one. The i can’t find a job because of Mexicans (when in fact they are just doing what others won’t). Those are off the top of my head but maybe someone can fill in the rest.

Now before you go all wild west and jump the gun I am not saying that their are blacks that don’t do it because that is just about as much bs as whites not doing it, but where I live….those type of statements are cartoonish.

Blacks here shame you to all high h*ll if you don’t have your sh*t together. You get shamed in church, in phone conversation, or anywhere else a person can think of to shame you.

I think it would actually do you some good to consider researching these things yourself instead making a joke out of every single thing that does not coincide with the stereotypical bs you decided to believe. It is quite sad really.

I apologize for bringing in your quote, but I do hope you do not mind as it does pertain to something that has been brought up.

“Uncle Milton

To Linda and Jay from Philly:

The police do a stellar job at arresting black perpetrators, especially when they admit they killed someone (like Zimmerman), so that people who like statistics can throw those numbers into black Americans faces and talk about crime because the police are on top of their jobs in the black community and those black criminals get arrested.

In general, arrest rates for reported crime are lower in predominantly Black neighborhoods.. but speaking of statistics.

Jay from Philly mentioned the “no snitching” attitude however the US Department of Justice surveys indicate Blacks actually report crime at a slightly higher rate than Whites, which FWIW jibes with my experience with Black people that I worked with in an informal neighborhood watch.”

I need to say something about this part of the comment xPraetorius gave you:

But Abagond, and BrothaWolf, and their ENTIRE entourage are ALL about blaming white people for their problems! It’s ALL due to white racism, remember? Heck, they’re practically about NOTHING else!

This is what it comes down to when it comes with like-minded people who appear in anti-racism blogs to argue against the narrative.

But it suggests five things:

1. We shouldn’t even remotely blame white people even if that is not the intention.

2. White people are never to be blamed for basically anything. To do so is racist.

3. White people are, and in some cases have never, never the cause of any of the problems black people face.

4. Black people are their own problems and no one else, especially not white racism which doesn’t exist.

5. Black people, for the most part, are screwed up because of their culture and nothing else. And they don’t do anything about it except blaming white people.

6. White people know more about black people than black people and blacks should listen to white people who “know better”.

It is never about hearing a different point of view, or even hearing the truth. It all comes down to blaming whites and siding with leftists. To them, the truth is racist and comes from the left, turning it into a political thing, and it should be ignored.

It’s crazy, if not insulting, that people continue to use that “high black crime rate” argument to justify their racism. It then makes no sense how they would say that it’s not racist.

White people are in no moral position to talk to black people what’s wrong with them. The history of their global conquest that resulted in the annihilation and rape of various non-European and non-American cultures as well as incorporating parts of their culture into their own and calling it “white greatness” is enough for them to stop and take a look at themselves before they play God and judge others. It says nothing of the savagery they’ve committed on themselves then AND NOW.

A lot of what they say about us is mere projection hiding any accountability for the actions of their people whether it’s against POC or other whites. It’s become so dysfunctional that to hint that white people are to blame incites hysteria and anger among white people who go on the offensive and tell black people how violent and criminal they are. It’s all psychotic.

The funny thing is I’ve never heard one black person deny that there is a problem with crime in the black community. Those who live in crime ridden communities acknowledge it. And so far, not one mention of “It’s the white man’s fault” was used, probably because they know it doesn’t fix anything. They are actively trying to stop not only crime, but the causes of crime, and they know that to do that means looking at the source. They know that the source doesn’t always come from within as if they have some kind of “defect” in their system. They know there’s a serious problem outside their neighborhoods.

When people love to bring out black crime, it’s always about interpersonal violence. The usual argument is that blacks are more violent than whites.

What’s always left out is the institutionalized violence committed by whites who are most of the people in corporate and political offices across first world countries. Sure, they may have not actually assaulted someone in person, but their ideas and policies creates a climate of oppression that often leads to violence while they are safe and sound in their sheltered rich lives.

I would imagine that they would not accept that a black person, like myself, doesn’t belong to either end of the political spectrum. They would likely reply that they are because they are “blaming white people” because that’s what leftists do.

To them, black people who speak their piece always side with the left. It never crosses their mind that they are speaking on behalf of themselves, not the left. They never realize that when we talk about racism, it’s because we are tired and angry of having to deal with it all day, every day. It can come from either side of the spectrum. We deal with liberal and conservative racism on the daily. And while they think only the left is racist (which may be a hint of more projection), some of them deny that the right is racist as well.

I’m astounded that to them the truth is political, in their case it’s always to the right. Why can’t the truth be just the truth without there being a political label attached to it to make it insignificant?

And before I call it a night I want to recommend that naysayers watch the amazing video Sondis posted on open thread. It shows a young white female who engaged in sexual acts with a 14 yr old female (crime in her state) Interesting thing is instead of her being shunned (as white people were said to do) she has support. Oddly enough I do believe casey Anthony did too.

And, actually true. I was a hiring manager once, and denied quite a few white people jobs because they were white. There is no doubt that affirmative action is an actual policy to discriminate against white people.

Truthfully, though, the only white people I’ve ever heard oppose it is because it doesn’t really help the intended beneficiaries. I have heard OF cases where white people have complained about being denied employment, or acceptance at college due to Affirmative Action. So, yes, the white complaints are out there. I guess they’re also justified.

I need to say something about this part of the comment xPraetorius gave you:

But Abagond, and BrothaWolf, and their ENTIRE entourage are ALL about blaming white people for their problems! It’s ALL due to white racism, remember? Heck, they’re practically about NOTHING else!

This is what it comes down to when it comes with like-minded people who appear in anti-racism blogs to argue against the narrative.

But it suggests five things:

BW:
1. We shouldn’t even remotely blame white people even if that is not the intention.

xPraetorius:
I never said or suggested anything of the sort. Stop making things up.

BW:
2. White people are never to be blamed for basically anything. To do so is racist.

xPraetorius:
I never said or suggested anything of the sort. Stop making things up.

BW:
3. White people are, and in some cases have never, never the cause of any of the problems black people face.

xPraetorius:
I never said or suggested anything of the sort. Stop making things up.

BW:
4. Black people are their own problems and no one else, especially not white racism which doesn’t exist.

xPraetorius:
I never said or suggested anything of the sort. Stop making things up.

BW:
5. Black people, for the most part, are screwed up because of their culture and nothing else. And they don’t do anything about it except blaming white people.

xPraetorius:
I never said or suggested anything of the sort. Stop making things up.

BW:
6. White people know more about black people than black people and blacks should listen to white people who “know better”.

xPraetorius:
I never said or suggested anything of the sort. Stop making things up.

BW:
It is never about hearing a different point of view, or even hearing the truth. It all comes down to blaming whites and siding with leftists. To them, the truth is racist and comes from the left, turning it into a political thing, and it should be ignored.

xPraetorius:
The above coming from you, BW, is particularly rich.

@BW: You’re arguing like this: I’m saying, “The sky is blue,” and you’re shouting back at me, “The sky is NOT orange!” Go back and re-read. I’m not going to tell you again that I’m saying, “White racism is not a big problem anymore.” And, of course, to repeat, I never even hinted at any of the things you listed above.

Sharina:
And before I call it a night I want to recommend that naysayers watch the amazing video Sondis posted on open thread. It shows a young white female who engaged in sexual acts with a 14 yr old female (crime in her state) Interesting thing is instead of her being shunned (as white people were said to do) she has support. Oddly enough I do believe casey Anthony did too.

xPraetorius:
No matter what it shows, it’s anecdotal only, and irrelevant to the larger picture. Again, the single incident cannot be used to draw conclusions about the larger picture.

I would imagine that they would not accept that a black person, like myself, doesn’t belong to either end of the political spectrum. They would likely reply that they are because they are “blaming white people” because that’s what leftists do.

BW:
It never crosses their mind that they are speaking on behalf of themselves, not the left. They never realize that when we talk about racism, it’s because we are tired and angry of having to deal with it all day, every day. It can come from either side of the spectrum.

xPraetorius:
But racism MOSTLY comes from the left, and rarely from the right. And I’m tired of being accused of being a racist, when I’m not. I’m ready for my Bass Ale now.

BW:
We deal with liberal and conservative racism on the daily. And while they think only the left is racist (which may be a hint of more projection), some of them deny that the right is racist as well.

xPraetorius:
Again, there is racism on both sides of the political spectrum, but a boatload more on the left. And, again, your individual experiences are irrelevant as far as drawing conclusions on the larger picture. BW: Never, ever, ever, ever, ever utter the words: “broken record” in your life. You long ago forfeited any right to say them. 🙂

BW:
I’m astounded that to them the truth is political, in their case it’s always to the right. Why can’t the truth be just the truth without there being a political label attached to it to make it insignificant?

xPraetorius:
All things are political, BW…and philosophical and spiritual and existential and connected.

Brothawolf said:
It’s crazy, if not insulting, that people continue to use that “high black crime rate” argument to justify their racism. It then makes no sense how they would say that it’s not racist.

xPraetorius:
It’s crazy that people like you don’t permit open discussion of the fact that black people are DYING out there, and your refusal to address it is killing them. You have the blood of black people TODAY on your hands with your crazy accusations of racism every time someone talks about blacks murdering blacks. Hello, BW KNock, knock! Anybody home? Black people are DYING out there, by ignoring it, YOU are helping to kill them. You can consider me a racist all you want, but YOU, hermano lobo, are a killer.

BW:
White people are in no moral position to talk to black people what’s wrong with them.

XPraetorius:
Anyone is in a position to talk to anyone about anyone. You’re certainly not shy about telling me ALL about what’s wrong with white people. You just lost the right ever to use the term “hypocrite” either.

BW:
The history of their global conquest that resulted in the annihilation and rape of various non-European and non-American cultures as well as incorporating parts of their culture into their own and calling it “white greatness” is enough for them to stop and take a look at themselves before they play God and judge others.

xPraetorius:
#1: Irrelevant to the discussion of the situation today. #2, we’ve been over this before. I accept your GIGANTIC compliment about my people. Apparently one day, we just decided to quit doing all these horrors you describe! Only race EVER to do that! Wow! We ARE cool!

BW:
It says nothing of the savagery they’ve committed on themselves then AND NOW.

xPraetorius:
Ummmm…ok. THAT’s incoherent.

BW:
A lot of what they say about us is mere projection hiding any accountability for the actions of their people whether it’s against POC or other whites. It’s become so dysfunctional that to hint that white people are to blame incites hysteria and anger among white people who go on the offensive and tell black people how violent and criminal they are. It’s all psychotic.

xPraetorius:
I sure sound hysterical and psychotic, don’t I, BW? Especially in light of all the controlled and civil things you’ve said about me and others like me. Do you even READ what you write?

BW:
The funny thing is I’ve never heard one black person deny that there is a problem with crime in the black community.

xPraetorius:
That’s ’cause you’ve never heard any black people TALK about it. If they’re not talking, they’re sure not denying! Ok, that little snark-out was just for fun. The REAL problem is that WHITE people can’t talk about it without false accusations of racism.

BW:
Those who live in crime ridden communities acknowledge it.

xPraetorius:
Of course they do! They acknowledge it, and, like you, tell everyone it’s the white guys’ fault! Then, when white people try to talk about it, you tell them to shut up, that’s racist.

BW:
And so far, not one mention of “It’s the white man’s fault” was used,

xPraetorius:
True, not one mention — more like a billion mentions.

BW:
probably because they know it doesn’t fix anything. They are actively trying to stop not only crime, but the causes of crime, and they know that to do that means looking at the source. They know that the source doesn’t always come from within as if they have some kind of “defect” in their system. They know there’s a serious problem outside their neighborhoods.

xPraetorius:
Ok, whatever. It’s never the fault of the ACTUAL people committing the crimes. It’s always somewhere else.

BW:
When people love to bring out black crime, it’s always about interpersonal violence. The usual argument is that blacks are more violent than whites.

xPraetorius:
@BW: currently blacks ARE more violent than whites. You know it and I know it.

BW:
What’s always left out is the institutionalized violence committed by whites who are most of the people in corporate and political offices across first world countries.

xPraetorius:
Yep. Those darned corporations made me rob that package store and shoot that kid! Got any more excuses, BW?

BW:
Sure, they may have not actually assaulted someone in person, but their ideas and policies creates a climate of oppression that often leads to violence while they are safe and sound in their sheltered rich lives.

xPraetorius:
More ghosts. There’s a climate of oppression out there — as we sit here and speak our minds so that billions of people can read us — that only BW and others who have the super-double-secret-decoder-ring can see.

Interestingly, the NSA HAS admitted to recording these little back-and-forths we’ve been having. How do you feel about that, BW. The Man’ IS coming for you, and he’s a BLACK man named Barack Obama! 🙂

I apologize for bringing in your quote, but I do hope you do not mind as it does pertain to something that has been brought up.

“Uncle Milton

To Linda and Jay from Philly:

The police do a stellar job at arresting black perpetrators, especially when they admit they killed someone (like Zimmerman), so that people who like statistics can throw those numbers into black Americans faces and talk about crime because the police are on top of their jobs in the black community and those black criminals get arrested.

In general, arrest rates for reported crime are lower in predominantly Black neighborhoods.. but speaking of statistics.

Jay from Philly mentioned the “no snitching” attitude however the US Department of Justice surveys indicate Blacks actually report crime at a slightly higher rate than Whites, which FWIW jibes with my experience with Black people that I worked with in an informal neighborhood watch.”

Sharina said:
Now before you go all wild west and jump the gun I am not saying that their are blacks that don’t do it because that is just about as much bs as whites not doing it, but where I live….those type of statements are cartoonish.

Blacks here shame you to all high h*ll if you don’t have your sh*t together. You get shamed in church, in phone conversation, or anywhere else a person can think of to shame you.

— xPraetorius:
Oof! Sounds pretty cruel! These people you describe sound like barbarians!

1. We shouldn’t even remotely blame white people even if that is not the intention.

2. White people are never to be blamed for basically anything. To do so is racist.

3. White people are, and in some cases have never, never the cause of any of the problems black people face.

4. Black people are their own problems and no one else, especially not white racism which doesn’t exist.

5. Black people, for the most part, are screwed up because of their culture and nothing else. And they don’t do anything about it except blaming white people.

6. White people know more about black people than black people and blacks should listen to white people who “know better”.

xPraetorius response to every note is:

I never said or suggested anything of the sort. Stop making things up.

But here’s the thing. I said that:

This is what it comes down to when it comes with like-minded people who appear in anti-racism blogs to argue against the narrative.

I didn’t address you directly. I was talking about like-minded people who’s thinking varies to individual degrees. Another individual may agree with you on points 1 or 3, but not on 4 or 6. Or you may not even say such things outright, but you’re still in the ballpark.

You’re arguing like this: I’m saying, “The sky is blue,” and you’re shouting back at me, “The sky is NOT orange!” Go back and re-read. I’m not going to tell you again that I’m saying, “White racism is not a big problem anymore.” And, of course, to repeat, I never even hinted at any of the things you listed above.

Just because you’ve said it a hundred times or more doesn’t mean it’s true. There have been numerous examples presented to you and many more outside this blog that argue against it. Stop-and-frisk, drug laws, hiring preferences, etc. All of that is documented and recorded.

I would imagine that they would not accept that a black person, like myself, doesn’t belong to either end of the political spectrum. They would likely reply that they are because they are “blaming white people” because that’s what leftists do.

So the black people on the right speak the truth, eh? And how is that less-political?

BW:
It never crosses their mind that they are speaking on behalf of themselves, not the left. They never realize that when we talk about racism, it’s because we are tired and angry of having to deal with it all day, every day. It can come from either side of the spectrum.

xPraetorius:
But racism MOSTLY comes from the left, and rarely from the right. And I’m tired of being accused of being a racist, when I’m not. I’m ready for my Bass Ale now.

Why can’t it just exist? What proof do you have that it’s mostly one and less of the other? And I didn’t accuse you of being racist – yet.

BW:
We deal with liberal and conservative racism on the daily. And while they think only the left is racist (which may be a hint of more projection), some of them deny that the right is racist as well.

xPraetorius:
Again, there is racism on both sides of the political spectrum, but a boatload more on the left. And, again, your individual experiences are irrelevant as far as drawing conclusions on the larger picture. BW: Never, ever, ever, ever, ever utter the words: “broken record” in your life. You long ago forfeited any right to say them. 🙂

Again, where’s your data or info to back it up? And I wasn’t talking about individual experiences by themselves. I’m referring to group experiences whose past events vary depending on the individual, but still have each faced some sort of racism. If millions of blacks have indeed been victims of racism, then you can not say that it is not a huge problem.

BW:
I’m astounded that to them the truth is political, in their case it’s always to the right. Why can’t the truth be just the truth without there being a political label attached to it to make it insignificant?

xPraetorius:
All things are political, BW…and philosophical and spiritual and existential and connected.

My point was that you attaching a political label to it helps make the issue less significant to you. Since you obviously don’t side with the left, and you don’t see white racism as an issue, you placed the label on the issue and considered it unimportant.

It’s crazy that people like you don’t permit open discussion of the fact that black people are DYING out there, and your refusal to address it is killing them. You have the blood of black people TODAY on your hands with your crazy accusations of racism every time someone talks about blacks murdering blacks. Hello, BW KNock, knock! Anybody home? Black people are DYING out there, by ignoring it, YOU are helping to kill them. You can consider me a racist all you want, but YOU, hermano lobo, are a killer.

I never said that I do not permit the subject being discussed. I said that white people are the last people to lecture us about our problem when they have a boatload of their own.

Anyone is in a position to talk to anyone about anyone. You’re certainly not shy about telling me ALL about what’s wrong with white people. You just lost the right ever to use the term “hypocrite” either.

And anyone is in a position to respond to that kind of talk the way you go out of your way – almost – to defend the honor of white people.

Irrelevant to the discussion of the situation today. #2, we’ve been over this before. I accept your GIGANTIC compliment about my people. Apparently one day, we just decided to quit doing all these horrors you describe! Only race EVER to do that! Wow! We ARE cool!

In other words the past has no effect on the present. So, there’s no need to talk about it.

That’s ’cause you’ve never heard any black people TALK about it. If they’re not talking, they’re sure not denying! Ok, that little snark-out was just for fun. The REAL problem is that WHITE people can’t talk about it without false accusations of racism.

Wow! He’s telling me what I hear or didn’t hear. So far, only you believe that accusations of racism are false. So, I guess that means racism is a widespread figment of our collect imaginations.

Ok, whatever. It’s never the fault of the ACTUAL people committing the crimes. It’s always somewhere else.

You’re just putting words in my mouth. I never said that it’s not the fault of the actual people committing crimes, especially when some crimes have been committed at the office level.

currently blacks ARE more violent than whites. You know it and I know it.

Yet, you deny saying or suggesting points 4 and 5 have any resemblance to your conclusion.

Yep. Those darned corporations made me rob that package store and shoot that kid! Got any more excuses, BW?

If you can’t understand what my original statement truly meant, I don’t know what else to tell ya.

All I will say is that if you can’t or won’t understand where we’re coming from, people will see you as talking out of your a*s.

“These constant references to long ago history kind of bolster my point. After all, if there were convincing examples of white racism TODAY, then YOU all wouldn’t CONSTANTLY be going back into deep, dark, long-gone history. :)”

Right, ANY mention of slavery is Blacks Bringing Up the Past – even though it was Michele Bachmann who brought up slavery, even though the point of the Bachmann thing is not whether slavery was racist, but whether SHE is racist. Not in 1860 but in 2011 or whenever she made that hideous remark.

Also, you cannot fairly write off Bachmann as a nutcase who does not matter, or whatever your terminology was: she was elected to Congress! She helped to make LAWS that affect the whole country. She represented 759,478 people in suburban St Paul, 95.6% of them white. I think she is a nutcase, but plenty of white people certainly did not. And that is what is frightening.

2. When did anti-black racism stop becoming a “big problem” in the US? How can you tell?

xPraetorius:
I don’t know.

3. How do you know you are not just as blind to racism as White Americans in the 1960s? What makes you different?

xPraetorius:
Clever question, but nothing more than that. It’s hard to know ANYTHING in that realm. I’m confident that I am though. And I have serious evidence of it…one piece of which is continuing to argue with you. I PLAINLY don’t meet the definition of “racism,” as I presented it to you previously.

“No matter what it shows, it’s anecdotal only, and irrelevant to the larger picture. Again, the single incident cannot be used to draw conclusions about the larger picture. “—Who says it is drawing a picture about the larger? This is what the 5th time you have tried to tell me what I am getting at by a certain statement.

The first 2 times I can chop it up as a mistake, but as of now I am at the poitn of realizing that this is how you seeminging seek to win arguemtns or debates. By trying to tell people what they mean. It is a decietful tactic and one that would work if I was not paying attention to it, but one that you fail miserable at with me. If you can’t debunk reasonably what I am saying then try just shutting up or try keeping up with the conversation as it stands with the individuals involved in it.

The point of it was this idea of what white people do. This proves that you can’t say with certainty what all white people do. It is ridiculous to keep asserting what the minority or the majority white people do when you have no freaking idea. Those are cases that just made the news (thus easy to find).

You are screwing up your own arguments by preceeding to type before thinking or actually getting a clear view of what is or is not being said here. So the next time you proceed to read my mind…DON’T

BW:
1. We shouldn’t even remotely blame white people even if that is not the intention.

xPraetorius:
Nope. Never said this. Never even hinted at this. Already addressed this made-up silliness…long ago.

BW:
2. White people are never to be blamed for basically anything. To do so is racist.

xPraetorius:
Nope. Never said this. Never even hinted at this. Already addressed this made-up silliness…long ago.

BW:
3. White people are, and in some cases have never, never the cause of any of the problems black people face.

xPraetorius:
Nope. Never said this. Never even hinted at this. Already addressed this made-up silliness…long ago.

BW:
4. Black people are their own problems and no one else, especially not white racism which doesn’t exist.

xPraetorius:
Nope. Never said this. Never even hinted at this. Already addressed this made-up silliness…long ago.

BW:
5. Black people, for the most part, are screwed up because of their culture and nothing else. And they don’t do anything about it except blaming white people.

xPraetorius:
Nope. Never said this. I WOULD be happy to discuss culture, if you’d like.

6. White people know more about black people than black people and blacks should listen to white people who “know better”.

xPraetorius:
Nope. Never said this. Never even hinted at this. Already addressed this made-up silliness…long ago.

xPraetorius response to every note is:

I never said or suggested anything of the sort. Stop making things up.

But here’s the thing. I said that:

This is what it comes down to when it comes with like-minded people who appear in anti-racism blogs to argue against the narrative.

xPraetorius:
Let’s be clear: this is in no way an anti-racism blog. I am appearing in a blog full of knee-jerk racists, who — as per my definition of racism — DO believe that: “race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race”

BW:
I didn’t address you directly. I was talking about like-minded people who’s thinking varies to individual degrees. Another individual may agree with you on points 1 or 3, but not on 4 or 6. Or you may not even say such things outright, but you’re still in the ballpark.

xPraetorius:
Then you’re even MORE off-base. You just have no right to speak for other people…to tell them what they’re thinking, feeling, want or need. You hve no right to do that, yet you do it all the time.

BW:
You’re arguing like this: I’m saying, “The sky is blue,” and you’re shouting back at me, “The sky is NOT orange!” Go back and re-read. I’m not going to tell you again that I’m saying, “White racism is not a big problem anymore.” And, of course, to repeat, I never even hinted at any of the things you listed above.

Just because you’ve said it a hundred times or more doesn’t mean it’s true. There have been numerous examples presented to you and many more outside this blog that argue against it. Stop-and-frisk, drug laws, hiring preferences, etc. All of that is documented and recorded.

xPraetorius:
And just because you’ve tried a hundred times to rebut a series of points I NEVER MADE, doesn’t prove anything either. Nearly ALL the examples presented to me were individual experiences, not applicable to the larger picture. Abagond, and a couple others took a stab at trying to present some relevant examples, but you haven’t yet, BW…you’ve merely blustered, called me names, read my mind, insulted me, told me of all the horrible things I’ve done even though you couldn’t POSSIBLY know that…BW: You’re not debating…you’re bloviating.

“No matter what it shows, it’s anecdotal only, and irrelevant to the larger picture. Again, the single incident cannot be used to draw conclusions about the larger picture. “—Who says it is drawing a picture about the larger? This is what the 5th time you have tried to tell me what I am getting at by a certain statement.

xPraetorius:
What’s the point, then, if not trying to address the topic? I’ve assumed that you’re trying to address the topic. If my assumption is incorrect, then (1) I stand corrected, and (2) why not address the larger topic?

Sharina:
The first 2 times I can chop it up as a mistake, but as of now I am at the poitn of realizing that this is how you seeminging seek to win arguemtns or debates. By trying to tell people what they mean. It is a decietful tactic and one that would work if I was not paying attention to it, but one that you fail miserable at with me. If you can’t debunk reasonably what I am saying then try just shutting up or try keeping up with the conversation as it stands with the individuals involved in it.

xPraetorius:
I AM trying to keep up, Sharina…you DO admit, I’m sure, that my task is a tad tougher than that for all of you. If I make occasional mistakes or interpret something incorrectly, I beg your indulgence. Quick image, Sharina: Imagine me standing there. Now imagine Abagond, BW, Omni, King, resw77, you and several others standing around me and tossing barbs and the occasional argument my way. Yes, I can tell you from my perspective, it can get confusing.

Sharina:
The point of it was this idea of what white people do. This proves that you can’t say with certainty what all white people do.

xPraetorius:
Thank you. I agree. White people — like black people — don’t fit nicely and neatly into the nice, tidy, neat little box that Abagond, and especially BW, keep trying to cram them into. I’ve made that point several dozen times.

Sharina:
It is ridiculous to keep asserting what the minority or the majority white people do when you have no freaking idea. Those are cases that just made the news (thus easy to find).

xPraetorius:
But I can tell you what the majority of white people DON’T do: make racial incidents. I maintain that it’s because they have been long engaged in a campaign to remove prejudice of any kind from their thinking and behavior.

Sharina:
You are screwing up your own arguments by preceeding to type before thinking or actually getting a clear view of what is or is not being said here. So the next time you proceed to read my mind…DON’T.

“I AM trying to keep up, Sharina…you DO admit, I’m sure, that my task is a tad tougher than that for all of you.”—I understand that a lot of people are coming at you, but your problem is that you are putting words in my mouth. Even with all those people coming at you there should not be any excuse for predetermining what a person is going to say and then arguing based on what you think they are saying not what they are actually saying.

“But I can tell you what the majority of white people DON’T do: make racial incidents. I maintain that it’s because they have been long engaged in a campaign to remove prejudice of any kind from their thinking and behavior.”—As much as you may continue wanting to assert that you can’t. The only reason you continue to is because you have decided to exclude racist whites as a part of this group. Yet you have also decided to ignore whites that spew the most negative stereotypes about blacks and pass it off as a fact of the black community.

“These constant references to long ago history kind of bolster my point. After all, if there were convincing examples of white racism TODAY, then YOU all wouldn’t CONSTANTLY be going back into deep, dark, long-gone history. 🙂 ”

Right, ANY mention of slavery is Blacks Bringing Up the Past – even though it was Michele Bachmann who brought up slavery, even though the point of the Bachmann thing is not whether slavery was racist, but whether SHE is racist. Not in 1860 but in 2011 or whenever she made that hideous remark.

xPraetorius:
No. But CONSTANT references to the past DO indicate that you’re not finding a lot of material from the present to refute my contention that: white racism is not a big problem in America today.

As to Bachmann’s remark. If, indeed, during the era of slavery a black child had a better chance of growing up with his parents than today, then the remark is simply true. Is the remark true, Abagond? Do you even know? If you don’t know, then you have NO CLUE under the sun whether it’s a hideous remark. If The truth CAN be hideous, but let’s never get to a point where we can’t speak it. Black kids nowadays have a greater than 70% chance of NOT growing up with an intact two-parent family. THAT’ sa hideous truth. I wonder if there was ANY time in history where black kids had a worse chance than 70+% of growing up in a two-parent family.

As to whether or not Michele Bachmann is a racist, she plainly is not.

Abagond:
Also, you cannot fairly write off Bachmann as a nutcase who does not matter, or whatever your terminology was: she was elected to Congress! She helped to make LAWS that affect the whole country. She represented 759,478 people in suburban St Paul, 95.6% of them white. I think she is a nutcase, but plenty of white people certainly did not. And that is what is frightening.

xPraetorius:
I’d NEVER write off Michele Bachmann as a fringe nutcase. She is neither fringe nor a nutcase. That you think she IS a nutcase isn’t frightening, but delusional and paranoid. More Fortress Thinking.

“I AM trying to keep up, Sharina…you DO admit, I’m sure, that my task is a tad tougher than that for all of you.”—I understand that a lot of people are coming at you, but your problem is that you are putting words in my mouth.

xPraetorius:
Ok…I said I’m sorry, and would try to stop.

Sharina:
Even with all those people coming at you there should not be any excuse for predetermining what a person is going to say and then arguing based on what you think they are saying not what they are actually saying.

xPraetorius:
Ok.

“But I can tell you what the majority of white people DON’T do: make racial incidents. I maintain that it’s because they have been long engaged in a campaign to remove prejudice of any kind from their thinking and behavior.”
—As much as you may continue wanting to assert that you can’t. The only reason you continue to is because you have decided to exclude racist whites as a part of this group.

xPraetorius:
Now you’re trying to put words in MY mouth. 🙂 I excluded no one from my statements. Also, racial incidents are simply very rare in America, as the Zimmerman-Martin incident made clear. If they’re very rare then, by definition, very few white people are causing any. This is pretty much indisputable.

Sharina:
Yet you have also decided to ignore whites that spew the most negative stereotypes about blacks and pass it off as a fact of the black community.

xPraetorius:
Again, context is necessary. If there are only three such whites, then, as I said, white racism is not a big problem in America. If there are 100,000 such racist whites, then that ALSO proves my point. That ratio is one white racist crank in every 1,800 white people. That one crank IS a problem, yes, just not a big problem. Again, Sharina, even if I admit COMPLETELY the truth of your statement (which I don’t): “Yet you have also decided to ignore whites that spew the most negative stereotypes about blacks and pass it off as a fact of the black community.” without context it’s meaningless as to the larger point. I apologize in advance if I misunderstood and you’re not trying to address the larger point.

I PLAINLY don’t meet the definition of “racism,” as I presented it to you previously.

I’ve been following a lot of your replies but I can not see where you have presented your definition of racism here at all. Though the question has been put to you many times and each time I can see you have deliberately ignored it. So why would you state a view that you have already presented this?

Maybe you have and I just missed it but I will give you mine which might help you to better place the context of so many of your ill-informed statements in:

This is the foundation and bedrock of American society (in fact Global Western society) today. Global Inequality exists whether you, I or anyone else here on Abagond’s blog believe this to be true or not. America would not exist as a nation today if it wasn’t for this historical FACT. It was built on it…Even you have not denied this.

You are exercising a privilege conferred to you by numerous social, economic, and political advantages to delude and deny to your self that gross inequality (and injustice) does not still continue to exist today. Perhaps its time to trade in those illusory false advantages you believe you’ve honestly acquired to help rescue and save the dying environmental infrastructure of resources (including peoples) on this planet. Which the US is still trying to illegally obtain to bolster its dying economy

Is there enough time left to acknowledge and undo what the dysfunctionally global behaviour of white male psychopathology has created before it becomes too late and destroys the planet and ALL of US on it !!!???

Otherwise…All I do know is there Really would be no one left here (or any where else) for you to argue your case with….

BW is right and wrong at the same time. Where he’s right: That many white people have never been the cause of any problems that blacks face is, indeed, true. Me for instance. I have never caused any black person any problems… not counting, of course, inadvertent problems like stumbling and falling on someone, or the like. Where he’s wrong: However, BW seems to be saying that “white people believe that they have never been the cause of any problems for black people.” The evidence supports the opposite conclusion. Again, the centuries-long effort on the part of white people to expunge prejudice of any kind from their thinking implies that white people found their thinking and actions to be deficient and in need of correction. “White guilt” is a concept the white people as a whole seem to have embraced for a very log time. This seems plain. And, by way of some small corroboration: I’m personally a firm believer in white guilt.

“Now you’re trying to put words in MY mouth. 🙂 I excluded no one from my statements”—Then that makes it even more absurd, but considering you have made such statments as “I mean: “No whites whom anyone takes seriously.” I presumed it to fit into this situation as well. My bad.

“Also, racial incidents are simply very rare in America, as the Zimmerman-Martin incident made clear. If they’re very rare then, by definition, very few white people are causing any. This is pretty much indisputable.”—Very few that you know of. Which goes back to you considering something rare when you don’t have a clue how rare or regular it really is. I can think of two cases off the top of my head that happened in the scope of the Martin situation that just did not get the media attention. And other posters can correct me but each incident happened maybe a mouth apart?

“Again, context is necessary”—Why is context necessary when it comes to someone making the choice to ignore it? It was said and you either take it for what it is or you decide to excuse it…as you are doing now. As the saying goes Don’t make excuses – make good. Stop trying to find every reason under the sun not to look at and address these types of wrongs.

If i said some crazy sh*t about white people you would nearly have a stroke trying to tell me i am wrong. I have to go but when I return I will point out how this larger and smaller context stuff is an excuse.

I PLAINLY don’t meet the definition of “racism,” as I presented it to you previously.

I’ve been following a lot of your replies but I can not see where you have presented your definition of racism here at all. Though the question has been put to you many times and each time I can see you have deliberately ignored it. So why would you state a view that you have already presented this?

Maybe you have and I just missed it but I will give you mine which might help you to better place the context of so many of your ill-informed statements in:

xPraetorius:
@Kwamla: You just missed it. Roughly 40% down this bunch of posts, I said to BW: Remember my definition of racism? The one that you agreed with? (Reminder: “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”)

xPraetorius:
First: your first point — “Racism=white supremacy” — admits of no other forms of racism. For example: the Japanese are a very racist society. They make no bones about it, and don’t consider it wrong. They view all other ethnicities as inferior to theirs. The Chinese view the Vietnamese as inferior nearly completely on racial grounds. Yes, these are WIDE-sweeping statements, but meant only to illustrate the point.

Second: “Ism’s” are doctrines, modes of thought. Therefore, behaviors have nothing to do with them.

No, I think my definition is more accurate, so I’ll go by that one. If you wish to use yours, then you and I will simply not be discussing the same thing, and any exchanges will be fruitless. If you can agree with my definition of racism, then we can continue back-and-forths, otherwise, there’s no point.

Kwamla:
This is the foundation and bedrock of American society (in fact Global Western society) today. Global Inequality exists whether you, I or anyone else here on Abagond’s blog believe this to be true or not. America would not exist as a nation today if it wasn’t for this historical FACT. It was built on it…Even you have not denied this.

xPraetorius:
Nope. It’s an aspect of American society, but not a big one. I haven’t denied that America would not exist without slavery having been in effect, because no one’s brought it up. I deny it now. In no way was slavery a NECESSARY component of America. In fact, I argue that ALL people — whites AND blacks — would have been much better off without it. Furthermore, this is now pretty much accepted as true in academia as well. Put another way, there is no one arguing that slavery was a net positive for ANY race in American history. Your historical “FACT” is nothing more than argumentative supposition. Also, global inequality exists because global equality is impossible. At all times in the past present and future, all races have been, are aand always will be more or less prosperous, accomplished, rich, healthy, tall, obese, artistic, reasonable, silly, athletic, clever, witty — and all possible other human characteristics — than all other races.

Kwamla:
You are exercising a privilege conferred to you by numerous social, economic, and political advantages to delude and deny to your self that gross inequality (and injustice) does not still continue to exist today.

xPraetorius:
Nope. I’m not.

Kwamla:
Perhaps its time to trade in those illusory false advantages you believe you’ve honestly acquired to help rescue and save the dying environmental infrastructure of resources (including peoples) on this planet. Which the US is still trying to illegally obtain to bolster its dying economy.

xPraetorius:
First: If I had any unfair advantages, you can have them all. Good luck ACTUALLY finding them, though. Fabricated ones don’t count. Next: the rest of what you said is a BIG Can o’ Worms, and outside the scope of this discussion anyway. My sole comment: you’re wrong. Except for your last point. I agree: the U.S. economy is dying.

Kwamla:
Is there enough time left to acknowledge and undo what the dysfunctionally global behaviour of white male psychopathology has created before it becomes too late and destroys the planet and ALL of US on it !!!???

xPraetorius:
I don’t know…let’s hope so. It’s certainly been acknowledged! Up one side, down the other, out the back door and around the world — 73 times. 🙂 If you want to argue, along with me, that leftist whites around the world are making a shambles of the place, then we are in complete agreement, and I welcome you to our ranks! However, THAT’s not where you’re coming from.

Kwamla:
Otherwise…All I do know is there Really would be no one left here (or any where else) for you to argue your case with….

“Now you’re trying to put words in MY mouth. 🙂 I excluded no one from my statements”—Then that makes it even more absurd, but considering you have made such statments as “I mean: “No whites whom anyone takes seriously.” I presumed it to fit into this situation as well. My bad.

xPraetorius:
Ok.

Sharina:
“Also, racial incidents are simply very rare in America, as the Zimmerman-Martin incident made clear. If they’re very rare then, by definition, very few white people are causing any. This is pretty much indisputable.”—Very few that you know of. Which goes back to you considering something rare when you don’t have a clue how rare or regular it really is. I can think of two cases off the top of my head that happened in the scope of the Martin situation that just did not get the media attention. And other posters can correct me but each incident happened maybe a mouth apart?

xPraetorius:
@Sharina: if there are racial incidents occurring, and the media are covering them up or ignoring them, then those incidents have not made it to my perception, or, presumably, yours. As such, we can only speculate on the scope and extent of them. Presumably there ARE SOME, but again, if opnly very few, then they’re not a big problem. If, however, such incidents ARE frequent, and the media are hiding them, that’s scandalous — I take a back set to no man in my scorn for the American media — and someone ought to investigate and expose. However, the media kind of tipped their hand in the Zimmerman-Martin incident, fabricating a racial incident where there was none.

Sharina:
“Again, context is necessary”—Why is context necessary when it comes to someone making the choice to ignore it? It was said and you either take it for what it is or you decide to excuse it…as you are doing now. As the saying goes Don’t make excuses – make good. Stop trying to find every reason under the sun not to look at and address these types of wrongs.

xPraetorius:
Again, context is ALWAYS necessary. Without it, ALL incidents are isloated incidents that tell us nothing about the larger picture. I’ve been making a “bigger picture” argument here for some time now. I don’t UNacknowledge or downplay or dismiss the smaller incidents, I’m just not interested in them in the context of THIS discussion. Some OTHER discussion, some other time? Sure.

Sharina:
If i said some crazy sh*t about white people you would nearly have a stroke trying to tell me i am wrong. I have to go but when I return I will point out how this larger and smaller context stuff is an excuse.

xPraetorius:
Nope. I don’t think I’d let it stand unchallenged though. Many of your co-commenters HAVE said one whole heckuva LOT of “crazy guano” about me. I had no stroke — why would I care one iota what a bunch of people who don’t know me say about me, good OR bad? — but I challenged it. Usually in a pretty polite way. 🙂

Brothawolf’s post:
I said originally:
It’s crazy that people like you don’t permit open discussion of the fact that black people are DYING out there, and your refusal to address it is killing them. You have the blood of black people TODAY on your hands with your crazy accusations of racism every time someone talks about blacks murdering blacks. Hello, BW Knock, knock! Anybody home? Black people are DYING out there, by ignoring it, YOU are helping to kill them. You can consider me a racist all you want, but YOU, hermano lobo, are a killer.

BW then replied:
I never said that I do not permit the subject being discussed. I said that white people are the last people to lecture us about our problem when they have a boatload of their own.

My reply:
Nope, you never said it, and yet, you DO prevent the discussion of the topic. You immediately trot out the accusation of racism whenever any white person brings it up.

I said originally:
Anyone is in a position to talk to anyone about anyone. You’re certainly not shy about telling me ALL about what’s wrong with white people. You just lost the right ever to use the term “hypocrite” either.

BW replied:
And anyone is in a position to respond to that kind of talk the way you go out of your way – almost – to defend the honor of white people.

My reply:
Nope, but I’ll defend the honor of INNOCENT people. Most white people today are innocent of the charge of racism. I think I’ve put forward some persuasive arguments to that effect.

I snarkily said originally:
Irrelevant to the discussion of the situation today. #2, we’ve been over this before. I accept your GIGANTIC compliment about my people. Apparently one day, we just decided to quit doing all these horrors you describe! Only race EVER to do that! Wow! We ARE cool!

BW replied:
In other words the past has no effect on the present. So, there’s no need to talk about it.

My reply:
Nope. Never said that at all. The past clearly affects the future, ie today. As I might have mentioned, white people’s long-time effort to expunge prejudice of any kind from their thinking — begun long agin in the past — has, I think, made them — ready to pop a blood vessel, BW? — the LEAST racist ethnicity on the planet. Now, I can’t say that definitively, since I’m not an authority on all planet-wide ethnicities. However, I think it’s pretty clear that whites are the least racist ethnicity in America. It’s hard to dispute that.

I said originally and snarkily:
That’s ’cause you’ve never heard any black people TALK about it. If they’re not talking, they’re sure not denying! Ok, that little snark-out was just for fun. The REAL problem is that WHITE people can’t talk about it without false accusations of racism.

BW replied:
Wow! He’s telling me what I hear or didn’t hear. So far, only you believe that accusations of racism are false. So, I guess that means racism is a widespread figment of our collect imaginations.

My reply:
Thank you. Whew! I guess the ONLY way to get you to STOP telling me what others are thinking or have experienced was to tell YOU what YOU’re thinking or have experienced. Now, can you PLEASE dispense with it in the future? As regards my telling you that “you’ve never heard any black people talk about it,” I was out of line, and I VERY gladly apologize and accept your conrrection. 🙂

I said originally:
Ok, whatever. It’s never the fault of the ACTUAL people committing the crimes. It’s always somewhere else.

BW replied:
You’re just putting words in my mouth. I never said that it’s not the fault of the actual people committing crimes, especially when some crimes have been committed at the office level.

My reply:
@BW, @BW, @BW: Your quote was: “They know that the source doesn’t always come from within as if they have some kind of “defect” in their system. They know there’s a serious problem outside their neighborhoods.” How do YOU read that?

I said originally:
currently blacks ARE more violent than whites. You know it and I know it.

BW replied:
Yet, you deny saying or suggesting points 4 and 5 have any resemblance to your conclusion.

My reply:
Let me go look them up. BW: quick note…there’s a lot going on here; if you could actually put the text of the points you’re referring to, it’d help me make my snarky replies to you. 🙂 Looking them up now.

…

Found ’em. Both points four and five are incorrect, so, yes I deny that they have any resemblance to my conclusion, which is correct (otherwise I wouldn’t defend it.).

I said originally:
Yep. Those darned corporations made me rob that package store and shoot that kid! Got any more excuses, BW?

BW replied:
If you can’t understand what my original statement truly meant, I don’t know what else to tell ya.

All I will say is that if you can’t or won’t understand where we’re coming from, people will see you as talking out of your a*s.

My reply:
Ok. I might suggest another way of expressing something. Goodness knows I’VE been doing that! Furthermore, I’m unable to use the orifice you mentioned for anything but its original, well-understood function. 🙂

xPraetorius:
Fortunately, there’s no need. White people acknowledged it long ago, and continue to acknowledge it. Heck, for the most part, they won’t shut up about it! Which is itself kind of a problem, because the CONSTANT chatter about it from blacks AND whites truly DOES dilute the overall understanding of either the concept OR the context, and that’s just a shame. It truly IS the Brotha Cryin’ Wolf. (Sorry, couldn’t resist the allusion.)

“However, the media kind of tipped their hand in the Zimmerman-Martin incident, fabricating a racial incident where there was none.”

Why do you say it was not a racial incident? How did the press make it into one if it was not?

xPraetorius:
Pretty simple…from all sources of a rather extensive investigation from many different directions, no one was able to make the case that there was any racial component to the incident. The jurors, who knew the details of the incident as well as or better than anyone in America, acquitted. The FBI said there was no racial component, and all that. You will disagree, of course, and that’s fine, but you WILL be going against the preponderance of the evidence. Again, while no one knows what goes on in the heads of anyone, the media made up the racial incident where there was no evidence to support it.

As to HOW they did it, that’s easy. They just said it looked like one, and that was enough to launch the race-baiters like Al Sharpton and other charlatans. There are a whole lot of Americans who accept uncritically what appears in the media. It’s why I consume a VERY wide array of media sources. No one media source gives a complete or accurate picture of anything.

The more important question is: Why did they do it?

I think the answer is: Zimmerman’s last name, combined with the hunger of most of the major media for such incidents, configured as they THOUGHT this one was configured. When it turned out that Zimmerman was Hispanic — another favored group — they were already committed, and had to follow through with the charade.

Again, I take a back seat to no man in my disdain for the American media.

“I WAS looking for someone to man up and apologize for calling me a racist, which, really is hate speech, if you think about it.”

And I called you racist where?

xPraetorius:
@Abagond, @Abagond, @Abagond…do I REALLY have to look through all the text to find that? I think you WILL acknowledge that many, many others have called me a racist, most prominently BrothaWolf, who has done it many times.

Let’s make it easier. I’ll ask you: In YOUR opinion, am I a racist? Any other answer than “No,” means you consider me a racist. Any wiggling answer, means (1) either you think I’m some kind of [fill in modifier, eg: “color-blind”] racist, and I make my point. Or, (2) you don’t want to answer, because, really EITHER answer — yes or no — is, let’s face it uncomfortable for you. In explaining all this, I understand that I’m releasing you from the rhetorical trap that my question represents, but I used the question merely to illustrate.

2. When did anti-black racism stop becoming a “big problem” in the US? How can you tell?

xPraetorius:
I don’t know.

3. How do you know you are not just as blind to racism as White Americans in the 1960s? What makes you different?

xPraetorius:
Clever question, but nothing more than that. It’s hard to know ANYTHING in that realm. I’m confident that I am though. And I have serious evidence of it…one piece of which is continuing to argue with you. I PLAINLY don’t meet the definition of “racism,” as I presented it to you previously.

P.S.: @Abagond: can you please give me a hint as to how I might go about bolding and italicizing in this edit window? I notice that others can do it, and it might be helpful to me in differentiating between sources of text and replies. I DO understand if you don’t want to help me do that, though! 🙂

xPraetorius:
Good image…Not applicable, but a good one. Again, it presumes to know what goes on in the minds of entire peoples. It presumes to understand white life, thinking, wants, needs, etc. If anyone were to presume to do such a thing to black people, I think you might be the first to object.

In fact, dear Abagond, everything that you write that uses that invalid tactic is, itself, invalid.

Now, with that said, there IS a way to talk about what black people and white people and any other ethnicity are thinking, want, need, hope for… That’s, of course, to talk about HUMAN needs, desires, thinking, etc. At some point, Abagond, are you EVER going to consider Black people and White people as just people? If you would, I’d be very happy to consider your remarks about people. However, in your current race-obsessed, blinkered mode, you prevent yourself from accessing basic black AND white common humanity. That’s just sad.

Viewed in THAT light, my remarks are, of course, not at all controversial.

If you are offended enough to demand an apology, to drench my blog with novella-length commentary, then certainly you must remember where I called you a racist. A person of high intelligence like yourself.

Tell me where I called you a racist. You are trying to wriggle out of this.

xPraetorius:
Two quick things: I didn’t challenge YOU to apologize to me for calling me racist. I said I was waiting for SOMEONE to man up and apologize for calling me racist.

Yes, I wiggled out of your question. You wiggled out of mine. We’re even. 🙂

In fairness you DID ask that I pore through rather a lot of text to try to find what may or may not be there overtly. I declined to do all that extra work. It IS, however, quite plain that MANY have called me a racist. You don’t have to man up and apologize to me, but SOMEONE really ought to. It’s the decent thing to do. Really: BW ought to. He’s the most frequent offender.

Nota bene: I DID make the point, in the Hitler thread, that you unsubtly tried to equate Hitler with white people and white people with Hitler. Hitler was an overt racist; ipso facto white people are racists (sorry at LEAST that tone is in your piece), ipso facto, I am a racist, because I’m white. Yes, I recognize that you scoped your piece to cover “many white people who comment on this blog,” However, (1) if you were NOT trying to convey that message, then you need to work on your communications skills, (2) I recognize that the Hitler thread is out of scope for this thread, (3) you and others in THIS thread and in the Hitler thread HAVE tried — repeatedly — to extrapolate the smaller incidents to the the larger picture. It’s a more than fair interpretation of mine. (4) the most obvious fact: many on this thread AND the Hitler thread, AND BW’ blog, overtly, no-bones-about-it, right-out-there, absolutely, no-question-about-it called me a racist.

Play a little thought game with me, Abagond: Pretend that I slipped some truth serum into your coffee this morning. Now I’ve got you sitting at table with me and I ask you: “So, Abagond, in your opinion, am I a racist?” How would your truth serum-drugged self reply?

2. When did anti-black racism stop becoming a “big problem” in the US? How can you tell?

xPraetorius:
I don’t know.

3. How do you know you are not just as blind to racism as White Americans in the 1960s? What makes you different?

xPraetorius:
Clever question, but nothing more than that. It’s hard to know ANYTHING in that realm. I’m confident that I am though. And I have serious evidence of it…one piece of which is continuing to argue with you. I PLAINLY don’t meet the definition of “racism,” as I presented it to you previously.”

So you cannot tell when someone is racist, yet we should take your word that you are not blind to racism.

If you are offended enough to demand an apology, to drench my blog with novella-length commentary, then certainly you must remember where I called you a racist. A person of high intelligence like yourself.

xPraetorius:
At no time did I demand that anyone apologize — at least not that I remember 🙂 — and if I DID demand it, I certainly never EXPECTED anyone to.

I’m pretty sure that my words — the words that I’ve stood by — were something to the effect that, “someone ought to man up and apologize to me for calling me a racist.” Hardly constitutes a demand. I HAVE issued some intemperate replies to BW — who is, really, a boor and an oaf — but I apologized to him…you can look it up. BW’s boorishness and oafishness are NOT a justification for me to misbehave.

Oh, btw, I’m not in the least offended by anyone calling me a racist. It’s like someone calling me short. I’m quite tall. And I’m not a racist. However, that doesn’t diminish in the slightest the truth of the following: “Someone ought to man up and apologize for calling me a racist.” It’s more for THAT person’s health, education, welfare and well-being. It would also be a sign of maturity.

If you are offended enough to demand an apology, to drench my blog with novella-length commentary, then certainly you must remember where I called you a racist. A person of high intelligence like yourself.

xPraetorius:
It does seem quite a lot, doesn’t it clearly no white racist would put up with such concrete-headedness on the part of his interlocutors for so long.

“Abagond’s premise is that I’m a racist by virtue of the color of my skin. That’s offensive, racist, vile, outrageous, disgusting. At the VERY least it’s rude. “

Where did I say that?

xPraetorius:
Obviously, that was an interpretation. You didn’t use those exact words. You’ll note that K of T didn’t dispute the interpretation. If you dispute my interpretation, that’s fine. To use an analogy: it seems like describing water to a fish.

Are you now saying, that “most whites” are not racist? I’d be okay with that declaration. And I think it would comport with reality.

“Two quick things: I didn’t challenge YOU to apologize to me for calling me racist. I said I was waiting for SOMEONE to man up and apologize for calling me racist.”

So who is that SOMEONE? And where did they say it?

xPraetorius:
The SOMEONE is anyone with the courage to do it. If you’d like I’ll write what I think is an adequate declaration. You then can, if you’d like, dispute or endorse it, or something in between.

Here’s my first hack at it
“Dear Mr. x: On behalf of the participants in this blog, I’m sincerely sorry that many of us called you a racist. While many of us may disagree with what you say, you have neither said nor done anything here (<– scope is important) that could possibly lead to a conclusion that you are a racist (<– that one's kind of important). The rudeness many of us displayed is always uncalled for, and the accusations we made were toxic and inexcusable (<– it's important to recognize that), and we will do our best to avoid such behavior in the future. (<– 'Cause no apology's worth anything without some kind of indication that one will stop the offending behavior.) I challenge the other participants in this blog's various discussions to endorse this declaration as well." (<– 'Cause you can't REALLY speak on behalf of everyone until they grant you permission)

That, I think, would suffice. And it would constitute a genuinely graceful and truly "manned up" declaration. I'm kind of pleased with it.

1. How can you tell whether a person, institution or culture is racist?

xPraetorius: complex question, but my “five points” could be helpful. Definitive? Could be.

2. When did anti-black racism stop becoming a “big problem” in the US? How can you tell?

xPraetorius:
I don’t know.

3. How do you know you are not just as blind to racism as White Americans in the 1960s? What makes you different?

xPraetorius:
Clever question, but nothing more than that. It’s hard to know ANYTHING in that realm. I’m confident that I am though. And I have serious evidence of it…one piece of which is continuing to argue with you. I PLAINLY don’t meet the definition of “racism,” as I presented it to you previously.”

So you cannot tell when someone is racist, yet we should take your word that you are not blind to racism.

So you are pretty much just full of hot air.

– * – – * — * – – * — * – – * — * – – * — * – – * — * – – * — * – – * –
xPraetorius:
Nope. Life is, among other things, a bunch of probabilities. For example at any moment our near 100% confidence that the sun is still out there shining is nothing but pure faith. If it blew up less than six minutes or so ago, we’d STILL see nothing but a cheerful, yellow ball. But, after six minutes…oops.

With that, you and I are arguing the subjective… even MORE difficult to “know.” I’ve tried to pose OBJECTIVE proofs to lead you to subjective conclusions. It’s kind of like if we were to argue about whether or not you’re a “good person.” You’d trot out as many objective proofs as you could find that you are, because you know that declarations like “I’m nice,” or “I’m generous,” or “I like kids” are all unprovable, unknowable and therefore not meaningful to supporting the subjective conclusion that you’re a good dude.

You, properly so, would challenge, and DO challenge, any SUBJECTIVE things that I’ve said.

I’ve posited many, many OBJECTIVE things to bolster my point that white racism is not a big problem in America today. It’s the best I can do.

Yes, I am confident that I am not blind to racism. Especially since I DO see it around me, and I DO recognize it when I see it, and I DO label it as racism. Now, that racism conforms to my definition of racism. If you’re comfortable with that definition, then we can at least be talking about the same things.

Now, there remain two things outstanding:
(1) How does one bold and italicize in this editing window, and
(2) How would your truth serum-drugged self respond to the question: “Abagond: in your opinion, am I a racist?”

If you evade it anymore, then I will assume that your truth serum-drugged self has responded, “yes, I think xPraetorius is a racist.”

Remember, I’m not asking you to do any extraneous work to answer that, as you asked me to do in answer to your question … 🙂

@Abagond: So what did you think of my declaration? Reminder:
“Dear Mr. x: On behalf of the participants in this blog, I’m sincerely sorry that many of us called you a racist. While many of us may disagree with what you say, you have neither said nor done anything here that could possibly lead to a conclusion that you are a racist. The rudeness many of us displayed is always uncalled for, and the accusations we made were toxic and inexcusable, and we will do our best to avoid such behavior in the future. I challenge the other participa

You never rectified this argument. Instead, you undermined your own case by offering an ad-hoc explanation: it was just a thought-experiment. It now seems you are grasping at straws.

Here is what you said in response:

@TS: You’re not too far off…Actually it’s a thought exercise, to which, if the answer is “yes,” then: If Proposition A, then Proposition B. If the answer is “no.” then: If not Proposition A, then not Proposition B. You see the difference, right? Again, the “five points” make no assertions. They invite you to ask yourself: “If a black person (1) gets an education, (2) speaks well, (3) works hard, (4) interacts well with others and (5) presents him or herself more or less normally, then can he or she succeed in America?” Again, if your answer to yourself is, “yes.” then Proposition B — “Racism is no longer a “big” problem” — is true. If your answer to yourself is “no,” then in your mind, Proposition B is false.”

However, your thought-experience fails, for it assumes racism is NOT a problem. In theory, your thought experiment may work only if we assume racism is not a problem. But racism is exactly the variable in question.

I see other potential flaws with your model:

1) Too restrictive/simplistic: aside from racism, your model does not consider other variables that may impact success, such as cronyism, lack of strong social network, credit score bias, discrimination based on looks, etc.

2) Inapplicable to real world/ too utopian: see #1. Your model is ideal only if other variables are relaxed in your thesis.

3) Too subjective: Again, you, yourself, said your model was just “4” points, before you changed it too “5.” You then said it could even change later. This indicates your model is arbitrary.

4) Inconsistent/invalid evidence: you claim your 5 points was more a thought experiment than an actual argument, yet use this very circular thought experiment to assume the truth of your conclusion – that racism is not a “big” problem.

5) Lack of explanatory power: Abagond himself asked you to identify when racism stopped becoming a “big” problem, but you couldn’t answer it using your model. Your response was, “I don’t know.”

I also asked you the following:

“Please provide the criterion to distinguish a “big” problem from not a “big” problem in your model. Furthermore, please cite evidence to support the validity of this criterion.”

Yet you never defined “big,” nor did you provide evidence to justify your methodology. You merely professed uncertainty:

what makes ME the authority on “big”?!? I agree, I am NOT the be all, end all for the definition of “big.” Again, though, the five points aren’t meant to define “big.” They make the following hypothesis — and I’ll summarize to avoid all the extra verbiage: “If TS’s Proposition A, then white racism is not a big problem in America.” I’m pretty willing to stipulate to just about any definition of “big” that the entire audience for this web site uses… if, that is, they eliminate all the usual insignificant fluff — like personal anecdotes, and context-less statistics. I reserve the right to change that if someone comes up with a definition for “big” that looks a lot to me like “little.” Great question, Ts! Maybe you really ARE a TruthSeeker…I was beginning to wonder.
One more quick thing, TS, we ARE talking about BIG things here. Many commenters have said essentially: “Here’s MY isolated, little thing, with no context or scope, and it proves my BIG thing and DISproves YOUR big thing.” Of course, I’ve used a LOT of words to try patiently to explain to them that the little things can’t be extrapolated across the big things, but few have accepted that. Look, especially, at BrothaWolf’s posts here, and his posts on my blog.

A honest statement and question to you. You seem to revel in the challenge given your single handed attempts to take on all commentators on Abagond’s blog. To this degree Abagond has afforded you your own separate post! Quite an achievement I would say! But then maybe he was just returning the compliment as you already did the same thing recently to him on your own blog. 😉

My question to you is what do you purposely hope to achieve by all of this beyond simply stating your, obviously, opposing views for what they are worth?

While you ponder that question here are some of those tips you asked for: (ignore or leave out the round brakets)

(italics), (bold) and (quotes)

I am surprised someone of your obvious blog writing skills and accomplishments would be unaware of these elementary coding techniques. Which may or may not (I think it does!) shed light on your similarly partial understanding of Racism and its affects.

You recently made this statement:

Oh, btw, I’m not in the least offended by anyone calling me a racist. It’s like someone calling me short. I’m quite tall. And I’m not a racist. However, that doesn’t diminish in the slightest the truth of the following: “Someone ought to man up and apologize for calling me a racist.” It’s more for THAT person’s health, education, welfare and well-being. It would also be a sign of maturity.

And this is what you also stated to me in your reply to my own comment:

Also, global inequality exists because global equality is impossible. At all times in the past present and future, all races have been, are and always will be more or less prosperous, accomplished, rich, healthy, tall, obese, artistic, reasonable, silly, athletic, clever, witty — and all possible other human characteristics — than all other races.

You probably don’t see it so I need to highlight the most important part of that statement: “…global inequality exists because global equality is impossible…

This BELIEF by my own definition of racism (white superiority/Black & non-white inferiority) I previously shared with you is racist!

Its built on the presumption that ALL peoples naturally wish to be on top or dominant over each other when this is not FACTUALLY, EVIDENTIALLY or HISTORICALLY TRUE!

It is a FACT that only white Western males (those of European extraction and descent) have sought to achieve and establish this type of dominance and inequality globally. Your argument would be that any other cultural group of peoples would also have done the same given the opportunity. But this is WRONG because they have had that opportunity and they did not given the historical evidence. – For example: The Egyptian civilisation lasted far longer than Western culturally civilisation (10,000 years) and was more advanced in many ways than what we take for granted as “modern” civilisation (last 2000 years) today.

So yes in your own explanations and words you are imbued with the dominant racist beliefs of this Western society and continuing to play your own ignorant part in contributing to its destruction and downfall! 😦

xPraetorius: Well, said Omnipresent! I appreciate your candor. You do see, I hope, that in correcting yourself, you’ve considerably changed the scope and meaning of your ORIGINAL statement that sought to extend your personal experiences to describe the global situation. I’v e been guilty of it myself, and had to correct myself. One does live and learn!

xPrae: My single example cannot be used to describe the global situation no I also cannot say that the example I gave was a ‘typical’ experience country wide however, I would NOT discount anyone who said they had the same/similar experience either. In humans I have seen the good, the bad and the downright repulsive. Whilst I know that strides have been made to address racism it takes people to engage fully to make it work and then be succesful.

“Sharina: if there are racial incidents occurring, and the media are covering them up or ignoring them, then those incidents have not made it to my perception, or, presumably, yours. As such, we can only speculate on the scope and extent of them.”— I will quote to you what I actually said which is : I can think of two cases off the top of my head that happened in the scope of the Martin situation that just did not get the media attention. Granted I probably should have better worded it, but this is not sayng the media covered it up or ignored it. It is saying that it did not get the attention the Martin-Zimmerman case did. As in Martin-Zimmerman case was everywhere with a whole page vs a tiny insert in the back.

“Again, context is ALWAYS necessary. Without it, ALL incidents are isloated incidents that tell us nothing about the larger picture. I’ve been making a “bigger picture” argument here for some time now. I don’t UNacknowledge or downplay or dismiss the smaller incidents, I’m just not interested in them in the context of THIS discussion. Some OTHER discussion, some other time? Sure.”—Bingo! YOU have been making an arguement about the bigger picture and in turn trying to make my postion be about the bigger picture as well. In all this not addressing what I am saying but trying to bring everything back around to your bigger picture arguement.

“why would I care one iota what a bunch of people who don’t know me say about me, good OR bad?”—As I have clearly stated, YOU are not white people. YOU are a white person. Unless you are Agent Smith and we are all in the Matrix.

It all goes back to what I said in regards to a leaky roof. If you sit a do nothing about it the leak gets worse. Same can be said with the precieved “small” prejudice or acts of racism. People can sit see an incident and claim “oh this is just one incident.” The harming party could see it as acceptable and continue doing more incidents until these incidents become a repeat and big problem. And all the while this could have simply been resolved had the average citizen taken their head out of their azz and addressed the incident when it first occured. Now before this become a “you think abc” session…all I am saying here is you can not judge what the larger is or is not doing. You can only judge a big or small problem in the scope of your own situations. Meaning what is a small problem to you can be a big problem to me and vise versa.

My Position of You don’t know has not changed. It is just you that wants to decide what I don’t know applies to based on what you believe.

In your everyday life…it may darn well be true that racism is not a big problem (based on what you choose and choose not to see). But you don’t have the scope to determine that for the whole country over and unless you are going to provide evidence of that (good luck with mind reading). Then I do believe we are done here.

I will hoever continue any polite conversation that does not pertain to the circle arguments we have been enduring.

TruthSeeker said:
But CONSTANT references to the past DO indicate that you’re not finding a lot of material from the present to refute my contention that: white racism is not a big problem in America today.

This is more fallacious reasoning, a textbook example of Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam.

xPraetorius:
Cute. Wrong, but cute.

TS:
If you assert a claim, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence to support your thesis. Merely asserting your claim and then asking others to refute it does not validate your claim.

xPraetorius:
Yep. Good thing I offered a BUNCH of evidence. You are free not to consider it “proof.”

TS:
It is no different than stating the following:

P1: The tooth fairy exists.
P2: P1 is true until someone refutes it.

xPraetorius:
Nope. I offered a BUNCH of evidence. You are free not to consider it “proof.”

TS:
Now here is your reasoning :

P3: White racism is not a big problem in America.
P4: No one has refuted P3.

xPraetorius:
Nope. You demonstrated what you THOUGHT was my arguement was circular. Your premise was incorrect. Interesting Note: I never said that the five points guarantee success. I simply invited you to play my thought exercise with me. They absolutely, certainly DO — no REAL debate is possible — maximize chances for success. If you’re looking for absolute guarantees, look elsewhere.

TS:
You never rectified this argument. Instead, you undermined your own case by offering an ad-hoc explanation: it was just a thought-experiment. It now seems you are grasping at straws.

xPraetorius:
I’m under no obligation to rectify an argument I’ve never made.

TS:
Here is what you said in response:

@TS: You’re not too far off…Actually it’s a thought exercise, to which, if the answer is “yes,” then: If Proposition A, then Proposition B. If the answer is “no.” then: If not Proposition A, then not Proposition B. You see the difference, right? Again, the “five points” make no assertions. They invite you to ask yourself: “If a black person (1) gets an education, (2) speaks well, (3) works hard, (4) interacts well with others and (5) presents him or herself more or less normally, then can he or she succeed in America?” Again, if your answer to yourself is, “yes.” then Proposition B — “Racism is no longer a “big” problem” — is true. If your answer to yourself is “no,” then in your mind, Proposition B is false.”

However, your thought-experience fails, for it assumes racism is NOT a problem.

xPraetorius:
Nope: it ASKS whether racism is a problem. Or, really a big problem. I conclude that the answer is “no, white racism is not a big problem in America today.”

TS:
In theory, your thought experiment may work only if we assume racism is not a problem. But racism is exactly the variable in question.

xPraetorius:
Nope. See the previous note.

TS:
I see other potential flaws with your model:

xPraetorius:
There is no “model.” It’s a simple thought exercise. Don’t overthink it.

TS:
1) Too restrictive/simplistic: aside from racism, your model does not consider other variables that may impact success, such as cronyism, lack of strong social network, credit score bias, discrimination based on looks, etc.

xPraetorius:
Aside form the fact that there is no model, Ok. cronyism, lack of support system are not “racism.” Credit score bias, looks discrimination are different topics, for another day.

TS:
2) Inapplicable to real world/ too utopian: see #1. Your model is ideal only if other variables are relaxed in your thesis.

xPraetorius:
Still overthinking it, TS…First, there is no model. Second: it’s a thought exercise; it’snot a definitive statement of belief on my part.

TS:
3) Too subjective: Again, you, yourself, said your model was just “4” points, before you changed it too “5.” You then said it could even change later. This indicates your model is arbitrary.

xPraetorius:
Nope. All thinking/analysis/research should constantly be subject to later scrutiny and revision. There’s no such thing as “settled science,” much less “settled philosophy,” or “settled sociology.” The “five points” are nothing more than a thought exercise to serve as a basis for discussion. If you choose not to use them on that basis, that’s ok too, but I won’t pretend that I meant anything more. Bottom line: instead of this near proctological-level analysis of them, why don’t you simply say “Yes,” or “No” to them? That IS, after all, the point.

TS:
4) Inconsistent/invalid evidence: you claim your 5 points was more a thought experiment than an actual argument, yet use this very circular thought experiment to assume the truth of your conclusion – that racism is not a “big” problem.

xPraetorius:
Nope. They ASK the question. I then gave evidence — a LOOOOOOT of evidence for my “yes” answer to the five points.

TS:
5) Lack of explanatory power: Abagond himself asked you to identify when racism stopped becoming a “big” problem, but you couldn’t answer it using your model. Your response was, “I don’t know.”

xPraetorius:
Ok…I believe that I never told anyone that they represented any definitive statement that stopped all argument.

TS:
I also asked you the following:

“Please provide the criterion to distinguish a “big” problem from not a “big” problem in your model. Furthermore, please cite evidence to support the validity of this criterion.”

xPraetorius:
And I told you I do not consider myself the arbiter of “big.” (see below) I also said, I believe, that I’d stipulate to what the larger group considers “big,” with the disclaimer, that if it was plainly “small,” I could disagree.

TS:
Yet you never defined “big,” nor did you provide evidence to justify your methodology. You merely professed uncertainty:

xPraetorius:
My definition of “big” is not relevant. Let’s use what you think “big” is, ok? If you’re REALLY down to parsing what I mean by “big,” then, really, (1) you’re WAY overthinking it, and (2) If we’re competing, I win.

Bunch of MY text follows: what makes ME the authority on “big”?!? I agree, I am NOT the be all, end all for the definition of “big.” Again, though, the five points aren’t meant to define “big.” They make the following hypothesis — and I’ll summarize to avoid all the extra verbiage: “If TS’s Proposition A, then white racism is not a big problem in America.” I’m pretty willing to stipulate to just about any definition of “big” that the entire audience for this web site uses… if, that is, they eliminate all the usual insignificant fluff — like personal anecdotes, and context-less statistics. I reserve the right to change that if someone comes up with a definition for “big” that looks a lot to me like “little.” Great question, Ts! Maybe you really ARE a TruthSeeker…I was beginning to wonder.
One more quick thing, TS, we ARE talking about BIG things here. Many commenters have said essentially: “Here’s MY isolated, little thing, with no context or scope, and it proves my BIG thing and DISproves YOUR big thing.” Of course, I’ve used a LOT of words to try patiently to explain to them that the little things can’t be extrapolated across the big things, but few have accepted that. Look, especially, at BrothaWolf’s posts here, and his posts on my blog. Bunch of my text ends.

xPraetorius:
(1) there was no circular reasoning, because you mischaracterized the point of the thought exercise, (2) therefore, there was no argumentum ad ignorantium, and (3) I never made any claims that it was definitive or argument-stopping.

My Position of You don’t know has not changed. It is just you that wants to decide what I don’t know applies to based on what you believe.

In your everyday life…it may darn well be true that racism is not a big problem (based on what you choose and choose not to see). But you don’t have the scope to determine that for the whole country over and unless you are going to provide evidence of that (good luck with mind reading). Then I do believe we are done here.

I will hoever continue any polite conversation that does not pertain to the circle arguments we have been enduring.

xPraetorius:
@Sharina: I believe I’ve offered ample evidence in support of my hypothesis. You believe differently. As regards, my everyday life, as you know, I’ve never tried to extrapolate from that to the larger picture, and wouldn’t ever presume to do so.

Omnipresent said:
xPraetorius: Well, said Omnipresent! I appreciate your candor. You do see, I hope, that in correcting yourself, you’ve considerably changed the scope and meaning of your ORIGINAL statement that sought to extend your personal experiences to describe the global situation. I’v e been guilty of it myself, and had to correct myself. One does live and learn!

xPrae: My single example cannot be used to describe the global situation no I also cannot say that the example I gave was a ‘typical’ experience country wide however, I would NOT discount anyone who said they had the same/similar experience either. In humans I have seen the good, the bad and the downright repulsive. Whilst I know that strides have been made to address racism it takes people to engage fully to make it work and then be succesful.

xPraetorius:
You are right. I HAVE had to clarify. I’ve admitted that many times. The crowd here was quick to pounce on any imperfections they perceived. Where they were correct, I immediately admitted as much, clarified, or apologized and accepted the correction. The two statements that — (1) white racism is no longer a big problem in America today, and (2) if a black person gets an education, speaks well, works hard, gets along well with others, and presents himself more or less normally, he or sh can succeed in America today — remain unscathed by all the slings and arrows tossed their way.

Otherwise, I see nothing to object to in your entire statement. Are you sure you want to leave it as is? 🙂

xPraetorius:
Hmmm… What “Q'” and what “brackets?” Still not sure you sure this tells me how! Forgive me for being dumb here! At some point, I’ll tell you a story about web development. Suffice ti to say that I’ve written browsers…it’s REALLY how WordPress implements the display of those types of text ornamentation. I was asking for tips, rather than going to find it out myself. 🙂

Also, I’ll address your long and very thoughtful post after I go pick up my daughter from work. Might be an hour or so before I get back.

It’s so obvious that -x is a racist because who else but a white racist would come on this blog and tell people that racism is no longer a problem? There is no point in responding because -x will just become more defensive and fail to listen to a different, alternative experience.

-x never seems to listen. -x writes on and on and on without saying anything of value and never seems to understand anything that is presented except to become an abyss of unchecked defensiveness.

Sadly, -x is asking for an apology? truly pathetic but so common.

I come here to read and there have been times when I have felt the defensiveness myself, overall, I think -x is very representative of white thinking, a closed wall with all points of view other than his own, way, way over his head. A dunce hat is in order..

As you know, some of us see no value in continually wasting time engaging the terminally deluded. Whenever it’s understood that a poster is a troll, it becomes rather obvious that the TRUTH, regardless of its overwhelming factual support, or presentation, will never be received by persistent and pathetic racists.

All the “support…” in the world can’t/won’t change a defective/cracked soul.

Since African people are highly melaninated, it causes them to be highly
emotional psychic and spiritually sensitive. Therefore, Africans CAN FEEL
Caucasians are deceitfully hiding their insincerity and are dependent on word order or a logical, rational thinking, which relies on word process. In other words, Caucasians feel that if something makes sense to them it must make sense to everyone. This is arrogance. This is part of their religious belief in the myth of White Supremacy.

Caucasian conversation has no rhythm and relies on words
(fragments) to explain their ideas.

African conversations are chemical and rely on the holistic visualization of the concept (picture) to explain the holistic ideas. Caucasians typically move to prove their ideas with statistics, research, or laws of average.

African people typically are in harmony with nature and themselves, and use direct, honest and open ideas as proof. This is confusing to hear for the linear communication ear of Caucasians.

Words to African people are used in a ritual and ceremonial ethnic fashion and paint pictures. Words for Caucasians are not culturally based, but imagined to be a pure form of logic process. They do not see how Eurocentric their words are. Caucasian words are based on superstitions, self-centeredness, and the collective mental illness of being a psychotic (White Supremacy is a psychosis.)

“let that sink in!”

They tend to focus on a single idea (fragment) and ignore the total ideas as a concept of spiritual and communal rhythmic harmony.

Fundamentally, the problem with Caucasian and African communication is the mentally ill (Caucasian) talking to the sane (African.) An African would have to be “out of his mind” and into the Caucasian mind in order to communicate effectively with a Caucasian.

An African “out of his mind” usually has adopted Caucasian thinking processes and does not see the Caucasian as a part of a mentally ill civilization. In any case, Caucasian conversation is nutritionally draining to Africans because of the built-in psychosis of it, the arrogant insulting tone of it, and the double-talk nature of it (conflicting ideas, right and wrong mixed, important words are long words, etc.).

Caucasians typically use cliches, socially pleasant sentences, “I
am a nice white person talking to a Negro” tone in their voice; “I am not a racist, but I am white and superior” tone, and the African’s inner self reacts to this toxic verbal energy.

The melanin dominated African holistically feels the toxic energy and they must ignite the immune system to defend them from Caucasian word use.

Wow – do you believe this Matari and Kwamla?
It sounds plausible, but doesn’t it reinforce the “blacks are emotional thinkers” meme?

I like it – it sounds as if the good doctor believes that Africans have different thought patterns than whites – that they can “feel” insincerity, the way an animal can sense fear. I think it explains a lot, and while it accounts for the mentally ill outliers like Thomas Sowell, Ben Carson, Condi Rice, Herman Cain and any number of intelligent (in the Caucasian sense), well spoken blacks, they may in fact be such a small group as to be statistically irrelevant. The theory also explains why black and white just can’t seem find common ground. we communicate past each other on different wave lengths.

My favorite part was this excerpt:
Fundamentally, the problem with Caucasian and African communication is the mentally ill (Caucasian) talking to the sane (African.) An African would have to be “out of his mind” and into the Caucasian mind in order to communicate effectively with a Caucasian.

An African “out of his mind” usually has adopted Caucasian thinking processes and does not see the Caucasian as a part of a mentally ill civilization. In any case, Caucasian conversation is nutritionally draining to Africans because of the built-in psychosis of it, the arrogant insulting tone of it, and the double-talk nature of it (conflicting ideas, right and wrong mixed, important words are long words, etc.).

Ignoring the labels of sanity and illness, it reminds me of a favorite Mark Twain quote: “Never try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig.” I think we’re finally communicating here.

You’ve got to consider though, in our American community – some 40 million sane blacks just can’t seem to make the other 260 million mentally defective humans understand what truth is. In this case, sanity is relative and you’ll have a hard time convincing the rest of us that your truth is the truth, but good luck with that.

As you know, some of us see no value in continually wasting time engaging the terminally deluded. Whenever it’s understood that a poster is a troll, it becomes rather obvious that the TRUTH, regardless of its overwhelming factual support, or presentation, will never be received by persistent and pathetic racists.

All the “support…” in the world can’t/won’t change a defective/cracked soul.

**************

–”Nutricide” (excerpts) by Dr. Llaila Afrika

Conversations with supposedly nice, well-meaning Caucasians can cause
destructive emotions, anger, boredom, frustration, and stress in African people. [*** Watch what you say. Are you TRULY saying that black people can’t control their emotions? I don’t think so. I don’t know about Africans, but we’re talking about Americans here. ***]

Since African people are highly melaninated, it causes them to be highly
emotional psychic and spiritually sensitive. [*** psuedo-intellectual hooey. And…WOW! Just… wow! ***] Therefore, Africans CAN FEEL
Caucasians are deceitfully hiding their insincerity and are dependent on word order or a logical, rational thinking, which relies on word process. In other words, Caucasians feel that if something makes sense to them it must make sense to everyone. This is arrogance. This is part of their religious belief in the myth of White Supremacy. [*** psuedo-intellectual hooey. Assumes that white people have a widespread belief in White Supremacy, which evidence doesn’t support. Just says things. Anyone can just say things. It’s not meaningful. ***]

Caucasian conversation has no rhythm and relies on words
(fragments) to explain their ideas. [*** psuedo-intellectual hooey. It could possibly be that YOU, Matari, are unable to discern the rhythm, but there most certainly is a rhythm to white conversation. It’s pretty easy to discern actually. ***]

African conversations are chemical [*** pseudo-intellectual hooey. And nonsensical. ***] and rely on the holistic visualization of the concept (picture) to explain the holistic ideas. [*** pseudo-intellectual hooey. ***] Caucasians typically move to prove their ideas with statistics, research, or laws of average. [*** pseudo-intellectual hooey. AND reads Caucasians minds, after saying at some length that neither can understand the other because of these vast differences in how we all use words. Again, can’t have it both ways. ***]

African people typically are in harmony with nature and themselves, and use direct, honest and open ideas as proof. This is confusing to hear for the linear communication ear of Caucasians. [*** pseudo-intellectual hooey and really bizarre psycho-babble. AND reads ALL Africans minds. Read away, Matari, we’re STILL talking about Americans here. ***]

Words to African people are used in a ritual and ceremonial ethnic fashion and paint pictures. [*** pseudo-intellectual hooey. Reads minds. besides, we’re not talking about Africans here, but Americans, so irrelevant. ***] Words for Caucasians are not culturally based, but imagined to be a pure form of logic process. [*** pseudo-intellectual hooey. ***] They do not see how Eurocentric their words are. [*** False. Actually we do. Most kids learn early on that most words in English come from a German current and a Latin current. ***] Caucasian words are based on superstitions, self-centeredness, and the collective mental illness of being a psychotic (White Supremacy is a psychosis.) [*** pseudo-intellectual hooey. ***]

“let that sink in!” [*** Welllll…OK! ***]

They tend to focus on a single idea (fragment) and ignore the total ideas as a concept of spiritual and communal rhythmic harmony. [*** meaningless, incoherent nonsense. ***]

Fundamentally, the problem with Caucasian and African communication is the mentally ill (Caucasian) [*** pseudo-intellectual hooey. Makes a value judgement unsupported by anything except the author’s own conjecture. ***] talking to the sane (African.) [*** pseudo-intellectual hooey. ***] An African would have to be “out of his mind” and into the Caucasian mind in order to communicate effectively with a Caucasian. [*** pseudo-intellectual hooey. ***]

An African “out of his mind” usually has adopted Caucasian thinking processes and does not see the Caucasian as a part of a mentally ill civilization. In any case, Caucasian conversation is nutritionally draining to Africans [*** pseudo-intellectual hooey. ***] because of the built-in psychosis of it, the arrogant insulting tone of it, [*** pseudo-intellectual PARANOID hooey. ***] and the double-talk nature of it (conflicting ideas, right and wrong mixed, important words are long words, etc.). [*** REALLY pseudo-intellectual hooey. ***]

Caucasians typically use cliches, socially pleasant sentences, “I
am a nice white person talking to a Negro” tone in their voice; “I am not a racist, but I am white and superior” tone, and the African’s inner self reacts to this toxic verbal energy. [*** Assumes the ability to read white minds, after saying above at some length that whites and blacks can’t communicate with each other due to murky theories of linguistics. Can’t have it both ways. ***]

The melanin dominated African holistically feels the toxic energy and they must ignite the immune system to defend them from Caucasian word use. [*** pseudo-intellectual hooey. ***]

There’s just so much in there that makes so little sense in ANY context whatsoever! To paraphrase Churchill: “never in the course of human debate was so little said by one, using so many words.”

• @Abagond: Howver, I think that in our catalog, we can now say that Matari has called whites, and therefore me, psychotics, and racists (first line.)

As regards your standards, there are none, if you simply allow people to accuse others of being racists.

@Matari: I put in some helpful hints to assist you in your problems with self-expression. Look for them in the [*** brackets with asterisks ***]

Summary: Matari speaks as though Blacks and Whites are entirely different species! I’d been waiting for some commenter to declare that black people are really a superior race, as did Hitler, and I guess Matari finally came through. Leonard Jeffries would be pleased.

All in all, one of the more fun posts. It’s sometimes good to deal with the easy ones. The posts that are NOT entirely nonsensical require more intellectual firepower.

This is a non-answer. Saying something is wrong is not a legitimate rebuttal: you must point out how something is wrong. You failed to show how your argument is not an Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam.

xPraetorius:
Yep. Good thing I offered a BUNCH of evidence. You are free not to consider it “proof.”

It appears you do not understand what “burden of proof” means. It does not necessarily mean to “prove” your case. It means to provide supporting evidence for a position.

Your problem is that you already begged the question by asserting racism is not a big problem, but then you used a “thought experiment” to arrive at a conclusion that was already presupposed. This is the perfect example of a circular argument.

Exactly! The above is unwittingly an admission: your reasoning presupposes A. Insofar as you presuppose the truth of “A”, you undermine the logic of your own position.

As I mentioned in both of my replies to you, Proposition B (your 5 point thought experiment) is dependent on Proposition A. Therefore, your argument is circular, as detailed in my previous two responses to you.

xPraetorius:
And it wOULD be fallacious if your premise were correct, which it’s plainly not.

You are the one asserting the claim that racism is no longer a big problem. Simply disagreeing with me does not constitute evidence.

xPraetorius:
Nope. You demonstrated what you THOUGHT was my arguement was circular. Your premise was incorrect. Interesting Note: I never said that the five points guarantee success. I simply invited you to play my thought exercise with me. They absolutely, certainly DO — no REAL debate is possible — maximize chances for success. If you’re looking for absolute guarantees, look elsewhere.

Please direct me, with quotations, where I said your five points “guarantee” success with exactly that adjective. I uncovered a hidden premise, which YOU just admitted takes this form:

In other words, you presuppose “A” and then set out to confirm what you already assume is already true. So your thought experiment is already logically deficient before it can even get off the ground. Your argument is inescapably circular.

xPraetorius:
Nope: it ASKS whether racism is a problem. Or, really a big problem. I conclude that the answer is “no, white racism is not a big problem in America today.”

Your thought experiment asks whether racism is a problem after already assuming racism is not a big problem. Then you conclude that racism is not a big problem. This is illogical. You said this:

“I conclude that the answer is ‘no, white racism is not a big problem in America today.’”

xPraetorius:
There is no “model.” It’s a simple thought exercise. Don’t overthink it.

Semantic wordplay is a sign that you have little of substance to offer.

xPraetorius:
Still overthinking it, TS…First, there is no model. Second: it’s a thought exercise; it’snot a definitive statement of belief on my part.

See my previous response.

xPraetorius:
Nope. All thinking/analysis/research should constantly be subject to later scrutiny and revision. There’s no such thing as “settled science,” much less “settled philosophy,” or “settled sociology.” The “five points” are nothing more than a thought exercise to serve as a basis for discussion. If you choose not to use them on that basis, that’s ok too, but I won’t pretend that I meant anything more. Bottom line: instead of this near proctological-level analysis of them, why don’t you simply say “Yes,” or “No” to them? That IS, after all, the point.

Obviously science, philosophy, or sociology is not settled and subject to revision as new evidence is encountered. The problem with your thought experiment, however, is that it already presupposes racism as not a big problem and then sets out an arbitrary number of points to confirm it.

This is NOT how science works. Scientists propose a HYPOTHESIS, not a statement of fact, which is what you erroneously did.

xPraetorius:
Nope. They ASK the question. I then gave evidence — a LOOOOOOT of evidence for my “yes” answer to the five points.

And I showed how your thought-experiment was flawed in five different ways. Moreover, I showed that your argument was circular. Therefore, your evidence was bias since you were merely trying to support what you already believed. In other words, your evidence serves as confirmation bias.

xPraetorius:
Ok…I believe that I never told anyone that they represented any definitive statement that stopped all argument.

This is an incoherent statement. Please clarify.

xPraetorius:
And I told you I do not consider myself the arbiter of “big.” (see below) I also said, I believe, that I’d stipulate to what the larger group considers “big,” with the disclaimer, that if it was plainly “small,” I could disagree.

If you are going to state that racism is not a “big” problem, then you ought to be able to define exactly what you mean by such a phrase. I asked you twice to do so, as has other commenters, but you persistently duck this issue.

Likewise, Abagond asked you to identify when racism no longer became a big problem according to your thesis. But once again, you evaded the question. In fact, you simply replied, “I don’t know.”

The fact that you are unable or unwilling to define the terms of what you boldly assert (along with the fact that you don’t even know when racism stopped becoming a problem) is a reflection of a lousy argument.

xPraetorius:
My definition of “big” is not relevant. Let’s use what you think “big” is, ok? If you’re REALLY down to parsing what I mean by “big,” then, really, (1) you’re WAY overthinking it, and (2) If we’re competing, I win.
Bunch of MY text follows: what makes ME the authority on “big”?!? I agree, I am NOT the be all, end all for the definition of “big.” Again, though, the five points aren’t meant to define “big.”

More evasion and ducking the issue. You asserted “big” so you must provide context. Ironically, you ask others to provide context whenever they provide statistics that destroy your claims, yet you yourself refuse to provide context for your own claims.

I will now borrow your own famous phrase: saying racism is not a big problem is “meaningless without context.” 😉

xPraetorius:
(1) there was no circular reasoning, because you mischaracterized the point of the thought exercise, (2) therefore, there was no argumentum ad ignorantium, and (3) I never made any claims that it was definitive or argument-stopping

vanishing point said:
I basically read here daily with an occasional comment.

It’s so obvious that -x is a racist because who else but a white racist would come on this blog and tell people that racism is no longer a problem? There is no point in responding because -x will just become more defensive and fail to listen to a different, alternative experience.

-x never seems to listen. -x writes on and on and on without saying anything of value and never seems to understand anything that is presented except to become an abyss of unchecked defensiveness.

Sadly, -x is asking for an apology? truly pathetic but so common.

I come here to read and there have been times when I have felt the defensiveness myself, overall, I think -x is very representative of white thinking, a closed wall with all points of view other than his own, way, way over his head. A dunce hat is in order.

– * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * –
xPraetorius:
I believe we can add VP to the list of those calling me a racist. Here’s the quote: “It’s so obvious that -x is a racist because…” VP then goes on to misrepresent me for, what, the thousandth time? Of course, I never said racism is not a problem. I never even said WHITE racism is not a problem. A big problem? Nope. A problem? Yep.

This is a non-answer. Saying something is wrong is not a legitimate rebuttal: you must point out how something is wrong. You failed to show how your argument is not an Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam.

xPraetorius:
Yep. Good thing I offered a BUNCH of evidence. You are free not to consider it “proof.”

It appears you do not understand what “burden of proof” means. It does not necessarily mean to “prove” your case. It means to provide supporting evidence for a position.

Your problem is that you already begged the question by asserting racism is not a big problem, but then you used a “thought experiment” to arrive at a conclusion that was already presupposed. This is the perfect example of a circular argument.

Exactly! The above is unwittingly an admission: your reasoning presupposes A. Insofar as you presuppose the truth of “A”, you undermine the logic of your own position.

As I mentioned in both of my replies to you, Proposition B (your 5 point thought experiment) is dependent on Proposition A. Therefore, your argument is circular, as detailed in my previous two responses to you.

xPraetorius:
And it wOULD be fallacious if your premise were correct, which it’s plainly not.

You are the one asserting the claim that racism is no longer a big problem. Simply disagreeing with me does not constitute evidence.

xPraetorius:
Nope. You demonstrated what you THOUGHT was my arguement was circular. Your premise was incorrect. Interesting Note: I never said that the five points guarantee success. I simply invited you to play my thought exercise with me. They absolutely, certainly DO — no REAL debate is possible — maximize chances for success. If you’re looking for absolute guarantees, look elsewhere.

Please direct me, with quotations, where I said your five points “guarantee” success with exactly that adjective. I uncovered a hidden premise, which YOU just admitted takes this form:

In other words, you presuppose “A” and then set out to confirm what you already assume is already true. So your thought experiment is already logically deficient before it can even get off the ground. Your argument is inescapably circular.

xPraetorius:
Nope: it ASKS whether racism is a problem. Or, really a big problem. I conclude that the answer is “no, white racism is not a big problem in America today.”

Your thought experiment asks whether racism is a problem after already assuming racism is not a big problem. Then you conclude that racism is not a big problem. This is illogical. You said this:

“I conclude that the answer is ‘no, white racism is not a big problem in America today.’”

xPraetorius:
There is no “model.” It’s a simple thought exercise. Don’t overthink it.

Semantic wordplay is a sign that you have little of substance to offer.

xPraetorius:
Still overthinking it, TS…First, there is no model. Second: it’s a thought exercise; it’snot a definitive statement of belief on my part.

See my previous response.

xPraetorius:
Nope. All thinking/analysis/research should constantly be subject to later scrutiny and revision. There’s no such thing as “settled science,” much less “settled philosophy,” or “settled sociology.” The “five points” are nothing more than a thought exercise to serve as a basis for discussion. If you choose not to use them on that basis, that’s ok too, but I won’t pretend that I meant anything more. Bottom line: instead of this near proctological-level analysis of them, why don’t you simply say “Yes,” or “No” to them? That IS, after all, the point.

Obviously science, philosophy, or sociology is not settled and subject to revision as new evidence is encountered. The problem with your thought experiment, however, is that it already presupposes racism as not a big problem and then sets out an arbitrary number of points to confirm it.

This is NOT how science works. Scientists propose a HYPOTHESIS, not a statement of fact, which is what you erroneously did.

xPraetorius:
Nope. They ASK the question. I then gave evidence — a LOOOOOOT of evidence for my “yes” answer to the five points.

And I showed how your thought-experiment was flawed in five different ways. Moreover, I showed that your argument was circular. Therefore, your evidence was bias since you were merely trying to support what you already believed. In other words, your evidence serves as confirmation bias.

xPraetorius:
Ok…I believe that I never told anyone that they represented any definitive statement that stopped all argument.

This is an incoherent statement. Please clarify.

xPraetorius:
And I told you I do not consider myself the arbiter of “big.” (see below) I also said, I believe, that I’d stipulate to what the larger group considers “big,” with the disclaimer, that if it was plainly “small,” I could disagree.

If you are going to state that racism is not a “big” problem, then you ought to be able to define exactly what you mean by such a phrase. I asked you twice to do so, as has other commenters, but you persistently duck this issue.

Likewise, Abagond asked you to identify when racism no longer became a big problem according to your thesis. But once again, you evaded the question. In fact, you simply replied, “I don’t know.”

The fact that you are unable or unwilling to define the terms of what you boldly assert (along with the fact that you don’t even know when racism stopped becoming a problem) is a reflection of a lousy argument.

xPraetorius:
My definition of “big” is not relevant. Let’s use what you think “big” is, ok? If you’re REALLY down to parsing what I mean by “big,” then, really, (1) you’re WAY overthinking it, and (2) If we’re competing, I win.
Bunch of MY text follows: what makes ME the authority on “big”?!? I agree, I am NOT the be all, end all for the definition of “big.” Again, though, the five points aren’t meant to define “big.”

More evasion and ducking the issue. You asserted “big” so you must provide context. Ironically, you ask others to provide context whenever they provide statistics that destroy your claims, yet you yourself refuse to provide context for your own claims.

I will now borrow your own famous phrase: saying racism is not a big problem is “meaningless without context.” 😉

xPraetorius:
(1) there was no circular reasoning, because you mischaracterized the point of the thought exercise, (2) therefore, there was no argumentum ad ignorantium, and (3) I never made any claims that it was definitive or argument-stopping

As demonstrated above, you continue to use circular reasoning and argue from ignorance.

– * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * –
xPraetorius:
@TS: I see the problem! First: you’re WAY overthinking it. Second: I said “thought exercise,” not “thought experiment” Third: you interpreted that I said: “The 5 points determines success, not race” Again, there are no guarantees in life for anyone. The five points, surely, IMPROVE chances for success; they don’t DETERMINE success. This shouldn’t be controversial Last: You’ve been coming at it backward. Let’s bring it all the way back to the way I’d distilled it earlier on in BW’s blog — minuse, of course, the 5th point.

The idea is, as my debate with Brotha Wolf brought out: If a black person gets an education, speaks well, works hard, interacts well with others, and presents him or herself more or less normally, then he or she can succeed in America. If you agree with that statement, then you have no choice but to conclude that white racism is no longer a big problem in America today. If you DISagree with that statement, then you indicate that you think white racism is STILL a BIG problem in America. ‘Cause, let’s face it, if there is discrimination in the workplace and socially against black people who meet the description of the five points, that needs to be shouted to the rooftops, as it was more that 50 years ago.

BW agreed with the five points, but said that didn’t indicate that white racism is not a big problem in America. You kind of bolstered MY hypothesis, however, when you mentioned all sorts of other factors: “cronyism, etc.” that, while a problem, are not racism. I would probably agree that some of those OTHER factors ARE big problems in America today.

solesearch said:
so we went a week without posts so you could go back and forth with this…dude. The only thing keeping me from being madly annoyed is that you have a lot of great old posts I’ve never read before.

xPraetorius:
Just another hidebound reactionary. No lack of ’em around here!

@Matari: Forgive me, please. I thought those out-in-left-field, really nutty ideas were yours. They belonged to Dr. Llaila Afrika…My apologies for the mistake. However, your passing them off as legitimate thought does NOT speak well for the intellectual rigor you’re bringing to all this.

@Kwamla: My apologies for getting to this one so much later than I intended!

Kwamla said:
@ xPraetorius

A honest statement and question to you. You seem to revel in the challenge given your single handed attempts to take on all commentators on Abagond’s blog. To this degree Abagond has afforded you your own separate post! Quite an achievement I would say! But then maybe he was just returning the compliment as you already did the same thing recently to him on your own blog. 😉

xPraetorius:
I welcome all honest questions. However, just ‘tween you ‘n me, I suspect that Abagond “gave me my own post” so I’d go away and not clutter his OTHER posts with dissent. 🙂

K:
My question to you is what do you purposely hope to achieve by all of this beyond simply stating your, obviously, opposing views for what they are worth?

xPraetoius:
Excellent question! I’m REALLY surprised no one thought to ask it before. As some of you might have guessed, I’m a writer, researcher, political commentator, blogger and several other things. I seek out sources of information, states of mind, viewpoints from ALL sorts of different sources. I arrived at Abagond’s blog via Brotha Wolf’s. Abagond tends to express himself a tad more calmly than BW, but BW has been censoring me for some time, so I can’t hang around there. One can’t get information if one doesn’t immerse oneself in a topic. I’ve studied America and her past — including racism and race relations — for decades. I do this all the time; seeking out people whose viewpoints differ from mine, and I challenge both their ideas and my own. There’s no challenge like putting your ideas out there for those who disagree to attack them! However, I’ve found that it’s only in the realm of race and abortion where, my different ideas get the mostly a flood of hyper-irrational name-calling, vitriol, sneering scorn and ACTUAL hate speech, as I’ve reminded Abagond several times.

I’m conversant in a number of important issues, so I engage my political opponents regularly, on many different topics. I’ve hung around here because even the rage coming at me from this corner — and EVEN despite repeated reminders to Abagond that it’s counter to HIS rules — represents important data. It IS an important data point that many blacks choose not to engage whites in any discussion of race relations except at the most superficial level.

TS: While you ponder that question here are some of those tips you asked for: (ignore or leave out the round brackets)

(italics), (bold) and (quotes)

I am surprised someone of your obvious blog writing skills and accomplishments would be unaware of these elementary coding techniques. Which may or may not (I think it does!) shed light on your similarly partial understanding of Racism and its affects.

xPraetorius:
@K, @K, @K…now YOU know it’s a REAL stretch to leap AAAAAAALLLL the way from the idea that I might not know how WordPress handles the display of text ornamentation on the screen, x doesn’t understand racism and its effects. I DO applaud your courage in making that leap, though.

And, I’m STILL not sure how to do the italics, bolding and quotes.

K:
You recently made this statement: Oh, btw, I’m not in the least offended by anyone calling me a racist. It’s like someone calling me short. I’m quite tall. And I’m not a racist. However, that doesn’t diminish in the slightest the truth of the following: “Someone ought to man up and apologize for calling me a racist.” It’s more for THAT person’s health, education, welfare and well-being. It would also be a sign of maturity.

xPraetorius:
Ok. Granted.

K
And this is what you also stated to me in your reply to my own comment:

Also, global inequality exists because global equality is impossible. At all times in the past present and future, all races have been, are and always will be more or less prosperous, accomplished, rich, healthy, tall, obese, artistic, reasonable, silly, athletic, clever, witty — and all possible other human characteristics — than all other races.

xPraetorius
Yes, that’s what I said.

K:
You probably don’t see it so I need to highlight the most important part of that statement: “…global inequality exists because global equality is impossible…

xPraetorius:
Correct. Look, first of all REAL equality of results or of attributes across all races IS impossible. Inequality is a measure. To assume that all races can EVER be at the same “score” for all measures of social, intellectual, economic, or political success is to pretend that all people are exact clones of each other. Even on a planet of 7 billions EXACT clones, inequalities would exist because of a million different OTHER factors.

K:
This BELIEF by my own definition of racism (white superiority/Black & non-white inferiority) I previously shared with you is racist!

xPraetorius:
As I mentioned: I disagree with your definition of racism. Again, if we’re not talking about the same thing, we can’t have a proper discussion or debate.

K:
Its built on the presumption that ALL peoples naturally wish to be on top or dominant over each other when this is not FACTUALLY, EVIDENTIALLY or HISTORICALLY TRUE!

xPraetorius:
@K: That might have been the case before, but I say — and this has upset most people here — this has demonstrably not been the case for white people in AT LEAST the past 50 years.

K:
It is a FACT that only white Western males (those of European extraction and descent) have sought to achieve and establish this type of dominance and inequality globally. Your argument would be that any other cultural group of peoples would also have done the same given the opportunity. But this is WRONG because they have had that opportunity and they did not given the historical evidence. – For example: The Egyptian civilisation lasted far longer than Western culturally civilisation (10,000 years) and was more advanced in many ways than what we take for granted as “modern” civilisation (last 2000 years) today.

xPraetorius
Even if I stipulate to ALL THAT (and I don’t, by the way), we’re STILL talking about white Americans TODAY. And I say that this has demonstrably not been the case for white people in AT LEAST the past 50 years.

K:
So yes in your own explanations and words you are imbued with the dominant racist beliefs of this Western society and continuing to play your own ignorant part in contributing to its destruction and downfall! 😦

xPraetorius:
According to MY definition of racism: “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race” I most definitely am NOT a racist. By the way, unless you believe Matari’s friend and we can’t use the same words in the same ways to talk to each other, then MY source is a VERY well-accepted source…by all sorts of people in all walks of life.

@Sharina: in reference to your vacations point. Now I remember! I was just thinking of your point…a black person “taking so many darn vacations” in the racist hellhole that all the Abagondians seem to think is America. However, I figured that was kind of a cheap shot. I guess it’s out there now, though. And it is, really, meaningless, so I withdraw it.

And just because you’ve tried a hundred times to rebut a series of points I NEVER MADE, doesn’t prove anything either. Nearly ALL the examples presented to me were individual experiences, not applicable to the larger picture. Abagond, and a couple others took a stab at trying to present some relevant examples, but you haven’t yet, BW…you’ve merely blustered, called me names, read my mind, insulted me, told me of all the horrible things I’ve done even though you couldn’t POSSIBLY know that…BW: You’re not debating…you’re bloviating.

Trying to reduce the issue to individual experiences does not make the issue shrink, especially if – like I said – millions have varying experiences that stem from the same cause.

They did present some relevant examples, and yet, what did you do? You still refuted them.

And yet, when it comes to any comment or blog from POC that addresses racism, you not only disagree, you also go so far as condemn them and end up getting it all wrong as a result. Case in point, this is the first part of what you wrote in the “Was Hitler Evil?” article:

Sorry, Abagond’s post is a pile of incoherent, paranoid blather. And the bilious replies that followed confirm it.

Somehow, the writer is reaching desperately to try to equate ALL European whites with Hitler. That the vast majority of subsequent replies agreed with that ludicrous premise should make all of you deeply ashamed.

I have to admit, it’s an impressive feat to do the wacky intellectual contortions necessary to conclude that white condemnation of Hitler’s white racism only confirms white racism. In the reasoning of the post, whites would be true to themselves ONLY if they embraced Hitler after having decisively defeated him and leveled his country.

So, when a large number of blacks describe an incident where the color of THEIR skin was the excuse, they were all being paranoid? It wasn’t anything racist at all?

And I notice you like to put words in other people’s mouths. Yes, you’re going to tell me what I do the same thing with you. But, you can not deny that you also have a habit of telling people what they said to you.

My point was that black people have been affected by white racism which continues to this day in a different, yet more covert form that most people can not see. I used to be one of those people.

I always know what your point is as you’ve said it a million times. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it. It’s just your opinion.

I would address your other responses to my responses, but it will get neither of us anywhere. Besides, I tire of this. And I really do believe you are trying your hardest in your free time to convince us that white racism is not a huge problem. If it’s not a big problem, why are you spending copious amounts of time and paragraphs to repeat your views ad nauseum, especially if it’s just your opinion?

xPraetorius:
And, let ME say that I appreciate the much less obstreperous tone.

BW (quoting me):
And just because you’ve tried a hundred times to rebut a series of points I NEVER MADE, doesn’t prove anything either. Nearly ALL the examples presented to me were individual experiences, not applicable to the larger picture. Abagond, and a couple others took a stab at trying to present some relevant examples, but you haven’t yet, BW…you’ve merely blustered, called me names, read my mind, insulted me, told me of all the horrible things I’ve done even though you couldn’t POSSIBLY know that…BW: You’re not debating…you’re bloviating.

BW’s reply:
Trying to reduce the issue to individual experiences does not make the issue shrink, especially if – like I said – millions have varying experiences that stem from the same cause.

xPraetorius’ reply:
That’s the point! I’ve been trying and trying and trying and trying to bring this OUT of the realm of the personal story, that can’t be extrapolated to the larger country. I’ve pointedly NOT reduced the issue to individual experiences, but rather kept my arguments to a larger scale, applicable to the larger picture.

BW:
They did present some relevant examples, and yet, what did you do? You still refuted them.

xPraetorius:
That was the OTHER point…they constantly came at me with personal anecdotes, unsupported speculation, statements about how bad white people were long ago in history…almost NOTHING at all addressing the situation at a country-wide level TODAY. If you look at my various arguments:
• the famous “five points”
• the $17 trillion
• the long list of black people who have prospered, and in some cases, become fabulously powerful and wealthy.
• The centuries-long quest to eradicate prejudice of any kind from the thinking of white people.

All these things are arguments at the scale of the topic: the state of white racism in America. Not the state of individual white racists around the country. Not the state of YOUR relationship with white people. The state of the whole darned thing. Not Abagond’s and his pals’ desire to keep race hostility alive despite the fact that most white people have long outgrown racism. If you prefer, white people just “got over it.”

BW:
And yet, when it comes to any comment or blog from POC that addresses racism, you not only disagree, you also go so far as condemn them and end up getting it all wrong as a result.

xPraetorius:
Darned right I condemn them! They called me and millions of other innocent people racists! They’re lucky that’s ALL I did to them. Maybe I SHOULD have called a lawyer and sued for libel!

BW:
Case in point, this is the first part of what you wrote in the “Was Hitler Evil?” article:

BW (quoting me):
“Sorry, Abagond’s post is a pile of incoherent, paranoid blather. And the bilious replies that followed confirm it.

Somehow, the writer is reaching desperately to try to equate ALL European whites with Hitler. That the vast majority of subsequent replies agreed with that ludicrous premise should make all of you deeply ashamed.

I have to admit, it’s an impressive feat to do the wacky intellectual contortions necessary to conclude that white condemnation of Hitler’s white racism only confirms white racism. In the reasoning of the post, whites would be true to themselves ONLY if they embraced Hitler after having decisively defeated him and leveled his country.”

BW’s reply to BOTH quotes:
So, when a large number of blacks describe an incident where the color of THEIR skin was the excuse, they were all being paranoid? It wasn’t anything racist at all?

xPraetorius:
I’m not sure you addressed the two passages of mine that you quoted, so I’ll just address your above paragraph. Let’s clarify: a very SMALL number of blacks — maybe a dozen all told — all of a similar point of view, Abagond’s regulars, described incidents where the color of their skin was a factor. I pointed out that even if there were 100,000 REALLY bad racist white people out there, THAT would represent only one racist per 1,800 white people in America. A TINY percentage. Abagond is trying to extrapolate to millions and millions of white racists committing millions and millions of racist acts per year. His evidence? Things like white condemnation of Hitler’s white racism, and his ability to tell us all what white people are thinking. That’s not evidence, that’s nothing more than wishful thinking. Abagond WISHES it were true, and is reduced to wilder and wilder speculation to make his point.

BW:
And I notice you like to put words in other people’s mouths. Yes, you’re going to tell me what I do the same thing with you. But, you can not deny that you also have a habit of telling people what they said to you.

xPraetorius:
I DO tell people what they say to me. But, I don’t take liberties with that. If someone says “all whites are racists,” why would you think it would be wrong for me to think that the person is calling me — a white guy — a racist. I USUALLY don’t have to interpret. Usually someone is calling me a racist outright.

BW:
My point was that black people have been affected by white racism which continues to this day in a different, yet more covert form that most people can not see. I used to be one of those people.

xPraetorius:
I admitted that “black people have been affected by white racism which continues to this day” many, many times. I’m trying to tell YOU that if no one can see the OTHER racism the hidden racism — that you can see only if you’re in the super-double-secret club, have the decoder ring and know the password — then maybe, just maybe, it’s not REALLY there. Or, as I might have mentioned in the past: it’s not a big problem anymore.

BW:
I always know what your point is as you’ve said it a million times.

xPraetorius:
No, my dear brother, no you don’t. You get it wrong ALL the bloomin’ time!

BW:
That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it. It’s just your opinion.

xPraetorius:
You don’t HAVE to agree with ANYTHING — this is STILL America, after all — but you SHOULD agree with what I’ve been saying…’cause it’s true.

I do not agree with Dr Afrika’s biological determinism, but this certainly sounds like xPraetorius (and many other white commenters)::

“the arrogant insulting tone of it, and the double-talk nature of it (conflicting ideas, right and wrong mixed, important words are long words, etc.).

Caucasians typically use cliches, socially pleasant sentences, “I
am a nice white person talking to a Negro” tone in their voice; “I am not a racist, but I am white and superior” tone, and the African’s inner self reacts to this toxic verbal energy.”

And he’s right. The assumption that any racial disparity is caused by racism is just that, an assumption. Correlation isn’t causation. What your media passes for as “racism” today is usually just someone being offended. As in, hurt feelings.

Who cares?

This is the fundamental problem with Western thought. Blacks and even whites take love, equality, empathy, etc for granted. Every single thing posted on this blog reeks of this fallacy.

I grew up in a non-Western country where every single individual, ethnic group, and race plugs for their own self-interests. You’re not entitled to any love or sympathy. If someone is even outwardly friendly you, you should be thankful.

I have no intention of being equal to you. My goal in life is to be better than you, and to raise my identity group above our competition, and put down rival groups before they become a threat. Just imagine how ridiculous your whining about inequality or privilege sounds to me. Too mean? Welcome to the real world.

You don’t HAVE to agree with ANYTHING — this is STILL America, after all — but you SHOULD agree with what I’ve been saying…’cause it’s true.

True according to who or what? You?

Whether you realize it or not, that’s the whole issue I and Abagond have with you. You’re like an agreement dealer, persuading and playing mind games to get us to feel like what we think and feel are inadequate and you’re trying to sell us a product, that we’ve seen before and (some of us) don’t want.

What makes your view more truthful than any of us with a different view?

You don’t HAVE to agree with ANYTHING — this is STILL America, after all — but you SHOULD agree with what I’ve been saying…’cause it’s true.

Ladies and Gentlemen: Please witness the arrogance with which xPraetorius continues to display his circular reasoning. “Cause it’s true” – this has been his presumption all along. This means no evidence or facts will dissuade him. It’s just “true”.

He even denied his circular reasoning while unwittingly admitting to it as shown in my last reply to him. This was a red flag to me: it shows he is not remotely interested in a serious intellectual dialogue, but rather to state his talking points ad nauseum until others tire of him and he gets the last word. Then he believes he has “won”.

Moreover, he is on a missionary quest to convert others to see the “truth” of his position, that racism is not a big problem. His commitment to that belief is similar to a religious conviction, and no argument or evidence will shake xPraetorius from it.

Abagond says he is like the Black Knight in Monty Python. To me, xPraetorius reminds me of a Scientologist cult member.

“so we went a week without posts so you could go back and forth with this…dude. The only thing keeping me from being madly annoyed is that you have a lot of great old posts I’ve never read before.”

Right, I need to give this xPraetorius thing a rest and move on. He will declare victory, call me a coward, of course, just like the Black Knight, but at this point he is not worth much more of my time.

Your posted article: –”Nutricide” (excerpts) by Dr. Llaila Afrika – was a welcome and enlightening perspective. I am familiar with Dr Llaila Afrika but not this particular article.

One of the things Dr Llaila Afrika has done in his specific African focused research is highlight the effects of dietary habits, the different foods we eat, can have on our physical, psychological and spiritual well being.

The thing about this Western impositional form of “whiteness” as a standard for everyone to follow socially, culturally, economically, etc… is that it clearly does not work for everyone. It is not a true standard – even though – it is presented as one. But more importantly it is not a natural standard it is an artificially imposed standard. To that extent even the people on who’s culture it is primarily based on – white people – suffer grossly from it too…!

When we simply examine something like food we find different people due to their physical, ethnic and biological make up require different food types to maintain and sustain their body types. Failure to do so promotes can promote bodily as well as psychological illnesses.

There are similarities as well as differences in the basic food needs of all culturally diverse and ethnic peoples which impact their physiological well being. But they do so in very different ways. They should not be overlooked or disregarded but this is precisely what the adoption of a Western cultural standard has done. Now everyone – including white people – are suffering in the form of diseases like: cancer, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart attacks, stress, emotional dysfunction and many more.

The point being we ALL are suffering from this artificially imposed cultural standard – though of course some more than others – simple because of its refusal to acknowledge biological physiological differences. It these bodily differences which are most easily represented by the shared functional component of Melanin which are primarily ignored and overlooked.

So for me there is probably a lot more to what Dr Llaila Afrika has to say in this article than many of us would be prepared to admit…. Because many of us have no really idea (apart from the lies and distortions we’ve heard) of the real significance Melanin plays in our biological make up. Perhaps its time we became more aware of this substance instead of in fear of it…

BW (quoting me):You don’t HAVE to agree with ANYTHING — this is STILL America, after all — but you SHOULD agree with what I’ve been saying…’cause it’s true.

BW replied: True according to who or what? You?

xPraetorius:
Yes, according to me. Plainly. Your viewpoint, on the other hand, is according to you.

BW:
Whether you realize it or not, that’s the whole issue I and Abagond have with you. You’re like an agreement dealer, persuading and playing mind games to get us to feel like what we think and feel are inadequate and you’re trying to sell us a product, that we’ve seen before and (some of us) don’t want.

What makes your view more truthful than any of us with a different view?

xPraetorius:
Well, it’s because I back I back my points up. I point to OBVIOUSLY objective facts like government programs, a black President, LOTS of HUGELY wealthy blacks like Oprah, Randall Robinson, countless entertainers, actors and actresses, musicians, and politicians all across the country. After that, I was unable to obtain a simple declaration from ANYONE here that all that represents “progress.” For resw77, it’s no progress at all, or something — his thinking is too murky to be deciphered. For Abagond, it’s “Magical,” so somehow invalid. And for you, BW, it’s simply beside-the-point. No one else addressed the question.

I backed up what I said, and you greeted me with a chorus of “Racist!” and “Liar!” and the funniest of all: TruthSeeker’s “Bad Debater!” as well as a long parade of irrelevant personal anecdotes, references to the distant past and a sprinkling of nonsense terms like “color-blind racism” and “mental genocide.” Don’t forget the absolutely loony stuff that Matari posted from “Dr. LLaila Afrika.” That was representative of the “off-in-space” crowd. That stuff was just embarrassing. However, the real point is that NONE of it constituted ACTUAL rebuttal to anything I said, and much of it neatly CONFIRMED my conclusions. Each time you guys did one of these cuckoo things, I indicated it to you, and invited you to try a substantive post. Very, VERY few of you took me up on the suggestion.

To his credit, Abagond made a few half-hearted attempts to use ACTUAL arguments, but gave up on each one after a single rebuttal.

I’m not saying I have a monopoly on truth, as you seem to but, yes, a dispassionate observer in re-reading all this content would say that I “won” the debate handily. It’s not because I was TRYING to win the debate, but because I was actually PRESENT in the debate. If you were to strike from what you ALL wrote all the stuff that was irrelevant for the reasons I stated above, you’d have to remove 99% of what you wrote. That’s not you debating or arguing or discussing. That’s just you hearing a viewpoint you don’t like and reacting by lashing out with verbal violence and knee-jerk accusations of, of course, racism.

BW: Life is, among other things, a bunch of probabilities and likelihoods. My viewpoint has one whole HECKUVA lot greater likelihood of being “more truthful than any of yours,” because, obviously, my viewpoint is tested. The crowd in THIS particular blog never got beyond the You-Have-To-Be-A-Member-Of-The-Super-Double-Secret-Club-And-Have-The-Decoder-Ring to see it argument. I tested your viewpoints, and you declined to take the test.

One last thing: Oprah Winfrey. An ordinary-looking, average-seeming black woman takes an idea, some extra-ordinary ambition, a lot of hard work, and now could buy the famous “Swiss Handbag” with the change in her pocket. She’s worth an estimated three billion dollars. Neither she, nor the most powerful man in the world — I don’t REALLY have to name him, do I? 🙂 — nor countless other FABULOUSLY wealthy, influential, respected black people, made their fortunes and success in anything RESEMBLING a country that has any significant racism toward blacks. I DARE you to prove THAT wrong.

Your posted article: –”Nutricide” (excerpts) by Dr. Llaila Afrika – was a welcome and enlightening perspective. I am familiar with Dr Llaila Afrika but not this particular article.

One of the things Dr Llaila Afrika has done in his specific African focused research is highlight the effects of dietary habits, the different foods we eat, can have on our physical, psychological and spiritual well being.

The thing about this Western impositional form of “whiteness” as a standard for everyone to follow socially, culturally, economically, etc… is that it clearly does not work for everyone. It is not a true standard – even though – it is presented as one. But more importantly it is not a natural standard it is an artificially imposed standard. To that extent even the people on who’s culture it is primarily based on – white people – suffer grossly from it too…!

When we simply examine something like food we find different people due to their physical, ethnic and biological make up require different food types to maintain and sustain their body types. Failure to do so promotes can promote bodily as well as psychological illnesses.

There are similarities as well as differences in the basic food needs of all culturally diverse and ethnic peoples which impact their physiological well being. But they do so in very different ways. They should not be overlooked or disregarded but this is precisely what the adoption of a Western cultural standard has done. Now everyone – including white people – are suffering in the form of diseases like: cancer, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart attacks, stress, emotional dysfunction and many more.

The point being we ALL are suffering from this artificially imposed cultural standard – though of course some more than others – simple because of its refusal to acknowledge biological physiological differences. It these bodily differences which are most easily represented by the shared functional component of Melanin which are primarily ignored and overlooked.

So for me there is probably a lot more to what Dr Llaila Afrika has to say in this article than many of us would be prepared to admit…. Because many of us have no really idea (apart from the lies and distortions we’ve heard) of the real significance Melanin plays in our biological make up. Perhaps its time we became more aware of this substance instead of in fear of it…

However, by means of exploration, I have a quick question for you: In MY biology classes, we all learned very early on that everyone has the same amount of melanin, but that for black or brown people, it is more evenly distributed in the cells, causing the cells themselves to appear darker. Is that no longer true? If, however, it IS still true, then since everyone has the same amount of melanin, how is the DISTRIBUTION of it an important factor in the differences between the races?

Furthermore, if, as you and Matari seem to be saying, HUGE differences between the races are caused simply by melanin distribution, then one can’t avoid the conclusion that racism is really a REALITY-BASED viewpoint! Remember the definition of racism that I used: “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”

You and Matari are stating categorically that the first part of my definition — “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities” — is absolutely true! This is absolutely astounding! Are you REALLY saying that melanin distribution — ie race — IS a, or THE, primary determinant of human traits and capacities?

I’m asking the question seriously.

One more follow-up question for you: If your answer is: “Yes, race IS the primary determinant of human traits and capacities,” then can you give me a rough estimate of the prevalence of that viewpoint among blacks and browns?

“so we went a week without posts so you could go back and forth with this…dude. The only thing keeping me from being madly annoyed is that you have a lot of great old posts I’ve never read before.”

Right, I need to give this xPraetorius thing a rest and move on. He will declare victory, call me a coward, of course, just like the Black Knight, but at this point he is not worth much more of my time.

“yes, a dispassionate observer in re-reading all this content would say that I “won” the debate handily. It’s not because I was TRYING to win the debate”—yet here I am saying you didn’t. Even two individuals on your own blog pointed it out( minus leila who is probably a yes man). Only you believe that and that is what makes this amazingly funny to me.

“I gather that YOUR declaration of victory, and taking your ball and leaving is the REAL victory. You just keep telling yourself that, Mr. A!”–This response here is even more proof of what I mean by you seeing a believe what you want to. He did not claim a victory. He chose to stop the nonsense. Which at this point really all it has become.

In other words: I WILL not be budged from my 50-years-out-of-date thinking, ’cause, like an old, ratty comforter, it’s comfortable. 🙂

It’s funny…I used to work for a methadone clinic as a database administrator. Some of the clinic’s “clients” — heroin addicts whose addiction was “managed” by replacing the heroin with taxpayer-subsidized methadone — had been with the clinic for DECADES. When I asked someone why they didn’t also try to convince the “clients” to kick the addiction, they said, “Oh, they can’t kick it…it’s changed their very body chemistry!” They were quick to indicate that the “incurability of the heroin/methadone addiction” was settled science, and that no one was even continuing to study it to see whether these poor people could be liberated from their addiction prison. In so saying, of course, they indicated that THEIR functions and THEIR jobs and THEIR organizations would ALWAYS be needed; WHETHER OR NOT the addicts could ACTUALLY be cured.

You guys keep going back to your clinics and drinking your tang. You can’t be cured…(*)

(*) Actually, I don’t believe that at all…it’s why I persist. I feel kind of like a parent with an obligation to help liberate you kids from the prison of your moldy, long, outdated, comfortable viewpoints, and help you come into reality and the 21st century.

“yes, a dispassionate observer in re-reading all this content would say that I “won” the debate handily. It’s not because I was TRYING to win the debate”—yet here I am saying you didn’t. Even two individuals on your own blog pointed it out( minus leila who is probably a yes man). Only you believe that and that is what makes this amazingly funny to me.

Sharina said:
“I gather that YOUR declaration of victory, and taking your ball and leaving is the REAL victory. You just keep telling yourself that, Mr. A!”–This response here is even more proof of what I mean by you seeing a believe what you want to. He did not claim a victory. He chose to stop the nonsense. Which at this point really all it has become.

xPraetorius:
Yep. However, it became nonsense nearly from the get-go, when the vast majority of replies to me were simply venom-filled invective. I’ve been trying to drag it out of the realm of the nonsensical the whole time. Most of the posters here appear unwilling to lift themselves OUT of the nonsense. You are one of the rare, positive exceptions.

Oh, and he DID claim victory. It was a “back-door” claim, but a victory claim, nonetheless.

Thank you for your adept summary on the importance of MELANIN (as it relates to white supremacy – – a racist psychosis) and the significance of nutrition within the confines of this deficient “artificially imposed cultural standard.”

Yes, the Western cultural lifestyle doesn’t largely embrace healthy living, in any form. It is anything but. Now that the veil has been pulled back we see it’s mainly about the pursuit of insatiable power, wealth, profit and control. Little else matters beyond …

TS(quoting me):
You don’t HAVE to agree with ANYTHING — this is STILL America, after all — but you SHOULD agree with what I’ve been saying…’cause it’s true.

TS:
Ladies and Gentlemen: Please witness the arrogance with which xPraetorius continues to display his circular reasoning. “Cause it’s true” – this has been his presumption all along. This means no evidence or facts will dissuade him. It’s just “true”.

He even denied his circular reasoning while unwittingly admitting to it as shown in my last reply to him. This was a red flag to me: it shows he is not remotely interested in a serious intellectual dialogue, but rather to state his talking points ad nauseum until others tire of him and he gets the last word. Then he believes he has “won”.

Moreover, he is on a missionary quest to convert others to see the “truth” of his position, that racism is not a big problem. His commitment to that belief is similar to a religious conviction, and no argument or evidence will shake xPraetorius from it.

Abagond says he is like the Black Knight in Monty Python. To me, xPraetorius reminds me of a Scientologist cult member.

Pretend you’re in court observing. A lawyer is questioning a witness on the stand. He says to the witness, “Mr. Smith, answer me this: If a black person gets an education, speaks well, works hard, gets along well with others, and presents him or herself more or less normally, can he or she succeed in America?”

Can you, TS, simply answer the question, or are you going to wallow in your rock-headed need to question the method of the question itself. It’s a simple question. According to your moronic “circular reasoning” obsession, no one could ask ANY question, since ALL questions ASSUME a WHOLE passel of things, eg. that (1) you’re both talking about the same doggoned thing, and (2) you both agree to the terms of the question. Duh! And yes, MY question IS calling for a conclusion. Not valid in court, perhaps, but perfectly valid in debate.

Again, TS, you were one of the few who could, I thought, be counted on to provide a not-completely-moronic reply without personal attacks. I see I was wrong in that assessment. I withdraw the positive assessment.

Thank you for your adept summary on the importance of MELANIN (as it relates to white supremacy – – a racist psychosis) and the significance of nutrition within the confines of this deficient “artificially imposed cultural standard.”

Yes, the Western cultural lifestyle doesn’t largely embrace healthy living, in any form. It is anything but. Now that the veil has been pulled back we see it’s mainly about the pursuit of insatiable power, wealth, profit and control. Little else matters beyond …

xPraetorius:
@Matari…serious question: this psychosis you mention..is it really totally determined by race? In other words are whites psychotics BECAUSE they’re white? I’m trying to understand this thread of reasoning that I have encountered before, but not in the context of someone trying to make a BIOLOGICAL argument as to cause.

One more quick question. You said: “Now that the veil has been pulled back we see it’s mainly about the pursuit of insatiable power, wealth, profit and control.” My question: How does this permit, say, a black President, or the success of Oprah Winfrey? Surely whites, if they were insatiably pursuing “power, wealth, profit and control,” they would not have permitted such phenomena? If whites were insatiably pursuing “power, wealth and control,” this surrendering of power, wealth and control is a REALLY odd way to go about it.

I’m picturing our secret white meetings as we plot how next to advance out insatiable pursuit of power, wealth and control. “I know,” someone must have said, “Let’s continue our insatiable pursuit of white power, wealth and control by giving whole bunches of power, wealth and control to black people!” “Yeah! Yeah!” must have been the shouted response. “That’ll show ’em!”

@Matari: people like you, who don’t really pay attention to things can be a lot of fun. All it takes is to take the things you say, and just walk them down the path to the ridiculous places they bring you.

🙂

Ok…enough fun. I repeat my serious question: this psychosis you mention..is it really totally determined by race? In other words are whites psychotics BECAUSE they’re white?

“In MY biology classes, we all learned very early on that everyone has the same amount of melanin, but that for black or brown people, it is more evenly distributed in the cells, causing the cells themselves to appear darker. Is that no longer true? If, however, it IS still true, then since everyone has the same amount of melanin, how is the DISTRIBUTION of it an important factor in the differences between the races?”

xPraetorius:
Nope. To the contrary, I was hoping to find that he and others could add something new and mind-expanding to a discussion of race. Since, the Hitler post — while deeply repugnant — was at least creative, I thought I might have found someone willing to explore differing ideas with an open mind. At this point, though, that hope has not been realized.

I never have the need or desire to “prove” I’m smart. No need and there’s no point. I think that my assertion my ego is strong enough without such validation, should meet with no disagreement. Furthermore, no one here, friend or foe, knows me well enough to provide such an assessment.

As to your second point, I DID walk BW through to the conclusion that he’s a racist. He admitted it several times. I think it’s accurate to conclude also that — at least according to my definition of racism — Abagond IS a racist.

So you resort to childish tactics and then proceed to call others a child.

1 thing I always tell people….if you have to beg someone to apologize then you need to question the sincerity if they decide to. You may also want to start question yourself if you infact rely on that to prove anything.

Not to mention people in glass houses. if you had plans on taking the high road you missed it. Just saying

Also, just use “b” or “blockquote” instead of “i”. It really is that simple 🙂

Now here is a quote from Dr Llaila Afrika I found highly applicable here:

Since African people are highly melaninated, it causes them to be highly
emotional psychic and spiritually sensitive. Therefore, Africans CAN FEEL
Caucasians are deceitfully hiding their insincerity and are dependent on word order or a logical, rational thinking, which relies on word process. In other words, Caucasians feel that if something makes sense to them it must make sense to everyone. This is arrogance. This is part of their religious belief in the myth of White Supremacy.

First, I would agree this is a generalised statement just like the words: African and Caucasian, European, Black, white, Asian, POC are general descriptors too.

However, there is more that can be learned from this observation than simply saying:

“… psuedo-intellectual hooey. Assumes that white people have a widespread belief in White Supremacy, which evidence doesn’t support. Just says things. Anyone can just say things. It’s not meaningful…”

Which on the face of it shows you to be displaying the very same thing it observes – typical white arrogance!

Lets suppose, for one moment, there could be some generalised truth in such a statement. You are hardly displaying the responses of someone genuinely open to receive it. You simply pronounce it as “…hooey…”

Leaving aside whether or not in your eyes it could be proven to be true or not…It does, if taken at face value, offer you a process for understanding the atmosphere in which your avalanche of comments and responses posted here have been received Do you, by any chance, have an alternative process for understanding you also could offer?.

I was quite taken aback by your response to one of my questions you said:

“… I’m a writer, researcher, political commentator, blogger and several other things. I seek out sources of information, states of mind, viewpoints from ALL sorts of different sources…

If I, or anyone else here, were to really take you seriously about this self description its not truly reflected in your quite often dismissive and close-minded responses. Or as Dr Llaila Afrika would say:

Africans CAN FEEL
Caucasians are deceitfully hiding their insincerity and are dependent on word order or a logical, rational thinking, which relies on word process.

Again…Do you have an alternative explanation for your apparently, twisted and conflicting appraisal here? If you are truly open to view points from ALL different sources how are you displaying this in your response to Dr Llaila Afrika?

Perhaps you might, as a ready example, contrast your response with Riverside_Rob here which appears to express more of what you say you perceive yourself to be than what actually say in practise. This is definitely something you should considered in how you might be being perceived in all your “to and fro” discussions here. Which could also be the course of so many of them.

Kwamla:
You probably don’t see it so I need to highlight the most important part of that statement: “…global inequality exists because global equality is impossible…

xPraetorius:
Correct. Look, first of all REAL equality of results or of attributes across all races IS impossible. Inequality is a measure. To assume that all races can EVER be at the same “score” for all measures of social, intellectual, economic, or political success is to pretend that all people are exact clones of each other. Even on a planet of 7 billions EXACT clones, inequalities would exist because of a million different OTHER factors.

My concept of Equality does not call for people to be EXACTLY the same. This is the impositional notion of the “white universal standard” (Western model) which I made in an earlier comment to Matari. Such an artificial standard, I agree is, impractical, useless and effectively unobtainable, because it ignores valuable and important differences.

So for example: Is it possible for Men and Women to experience Equality even though they may be similar but vastly different in other ways?

– Is it possible for women to be paid the same rate as men for the same work?
– Is it possible for women to hold the same positions of responsibility over men. The same way men do over women?
– Is it possible for women to have as much power over the rules that govern their lives as men?
-Is it possible for women to make as many decisions about where resources should go to assist countries as men do?
-Is it possible for women to have just as much participation in sporting activities as men?

Its possible to acknowledge the differences that separate men and women but still allow both to experience natural Equality. It is in my conception Do you not believe any of these things are possible under yours?

In the same way African-Americans (and any other ethnic groups) could also enjoy Equality in these same areas with white Americans. But the FACT is they DO NOT! Just as in the same way women today in Western society do not…!

Further, those opportunities are BLOCKED or non-existent for them to obtain them. However, none of this really matters because, in your view, REAL equality is unobtainable?

Something which sort of puzzles me though is your expressed desire not to be considered racist. Why would that matter so much to you?

xPraetorius:“…According to MY definition of racism: “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race” I most definitely am NOT a racist….”

So are you tiandi? I guess you forgot to switch out profiles before you responded. I was not asking you what you are and are not trying to prove because as you can see in this post I know how to put @ the person I choose to respond to.

You make any and everything about YOU, so in the art of serious discussion I really can’t take much of what you say seriously because of continuous delusional episodes. This is not to be mean but to be serious.

tiandi said:
And he’s right. The assumption that any racial disparity is caused by racism is just that, an assumption. Correlation isn’t causation. What your media passes for as “racism” today is usually just someone being offended. As in, hurt feelings.

Who cares?

This is the fundamental problem with Western thought. Blacks and even whites take love, equality, empathy, etc for granted. Every single thing posted on this blog reeks of this fallacy.

I grew up in a non-Western country where every single individual, ethnic group, and race plugs for their own self-interests. You’re not entitled to any love or sympathy. If someone is even outwardly friendly you, you should be thankful.

I have no intention of being equal to you. My goal in life is to be better than you, and to raise my identity group above our competition, and put down rival groups before they become a threat. Just imagine how ridiculous your whining about inequality or privilege sounds to me. Too mean? Welcome to the real world.

xPraetorius:
What tiandi says accords perfectly with what a friend of mine said when returned from Japan. He observed that the Japanese make no bones about their racism, that they view it as a positive thing, and are absolutely open and up-front in their belief that ALL other ethnicities are inferior. He says that THEY say that they view this as a state-of-mind that protects BOTH the Japanese AND Japanese-ness, which they view as intrinsically valuable. yes, that’s my “anecdote,” but my friend’s job entailed his having an in-depth understanding of Japanese culture. He is a credible source.

I’ve also spoken with others who’ve spent time elsewhere, who report similar states of mind, regardless of whether the majority ethnicity was “white” or not.

The USA appears to be one of the few countries where racism is considered evil. This perception that racism is evil appears to be widespread only in those countries dominated by the european white ethnicity. More to the point: in societies dominated by the WESTERN european white ethnicity.

This nicely supports one of my sub-conclusions: whites are REALLY the least racist ethnicity on the planet. I think it’s obvious that whites are the least racist ethnicity in America.

So are you tiandi? I guess you forgot to switch out profiles before you responded. I was not asking you what you are and are not trying to prove because as you can see in this post I know how to put @ the person I choose to respond to.

You make any and everything about YOU, so in the art of serious discussion I really can’t take much of what you say seriously because of continuous delusional episodes. This is not to be mean but to be serious.

I will take your word for it, but in that you had no point in really responding for him/her.

“I’ve also spoken with others who’ve spent time elsewhere, who report similar states of mind, regardless of whether the majority ethnicity was “white” or not.”—LMFAO. I find it gut twistingly hilarious that you are using this to conclude that “whites are REALLY the least racist ethnicity on the planet.” Yet was constantly trying to tell others (including myself) that certain situations…how did you put it…did not reflect the larger. ROFL!!

Also, just use “b” or “blockquote” instead of “i”. It really is that simple 🙂

Now here is a quote from Dr Llaila Afrika I found highly applicable here:

Since African people are highly melaninated, it causes them to be highly
emotional psychic and spiritually sensitive. Therefore, Africans CAN FEEL
Caucasians are deceitfully hiding their insincerity and are dependent on word order or a logical, rational thinking, which relies on word process. In other words, Caucasians feel that if something makes sense to them it must make sense to everyone. This is arrogance. This is part of their religious belief in the myth of White Supremacy.

First, I would agree this is a generalised statement just like the words: African and Caucasian, European, Black, white, Asian, POC are general descriptors too.

However, there is more that can be learned from this observation than simply saying:

“… psuedo-intellectual hooey. Assumes that white people have a widespread belief in White Supremacy, which evidence doesn’t support. Just says things. Anyone can just say things. It’s not meaningful…”

Which on the face of it shows you to be displaying the very same thing it observes – typical white arrogance!

Lets suppose, for one moment, there could be some generalised truth in such a statement. You are hardly displaying the responses of someone genuinely open to receive it. You simply pronounce it as “…hooey…”

Leaving aside whether or not in your eyes it could be proven to be true or not…It does, if taken at face value, offer you a process for understanding the atmosphere in which your avalanche of comments and responses posted here have been received Do you, by any chance, have an alternative process for understanding you also could offer?.

I was quite taken aback by your response to one of my questions you said:

“… I’m a writer, researcher, political commentator, blogger and several other things. I seek out sources of information, states of mind, viewpoints from ALL sorts of different sources…

If I, or anyone else here, were to really take you seriously about this self description its not truly reflected in your quite often dismissive and close-minded responses. Or as Dr Llaila Afrika would say:

Africans CAN FEEL
Caucasians are deceitfully hiding their insincerity and are dependent on word order or a logical, rational thinking, which relies on word process.

Again…Do you have an alternative explanation for your apparently, twisted and conflicting appraisal here? If you are truly open to view points from ALL different sources how are you displaying this in your response to Dr Llaila Afrika?

Perhaps you might, as a ready example, contrast your response with Riverside_Rob here which appears to express more of what you say you perceive yourself to be than what actually say in practise. This is definitely something you should considered in how you might be being perceived in all your “to and fro” discussions here. Which could also be the course of so many of them.

Kwamla:
You probably don’t see it so I need to highlight the most important part of that statement: “…global inequality exists because global equality is impossible…

xPraetorius:
Correct. Look, first of all REAL equality of results or of attributes across all races IS impossible. Inequality is a measure. To assume that all races can EVER be at the same “score” for all measures of social, intellectual, economic, or political success is to pretend that all people are exact clones of each other. Even on a planet of 7 billions EXACT clones, inequalities would exist because of a million different OTHER factors.

My concept of Equality does not call for people to be EXACTLY the same. This is the impositional notion of the “white universal standard” (Western model) which I made in an earlier comment to Matari. Such an artificial standard, I agree is, impractical, useless and effectively unobtainable, because it ignores valuable and important differences.

So for example: Is it possible for Men and Women to experience Equality even though they may be similar but vastly different in other ways?

– Is it possible for women to be paid the same rate as men for the same work?
– Is it possible for women to hold the same positions of responsibility over men. The same way men do over women?
– Is it possible for women to have as much power over the rules that govern their lives as men?
-Is it possible for women to make as many decisions about where resources should go to assist countries as men do?
-Is it possible for women to have just as much participation in sporting activities as men?

Its possible to acknowledge the differences that separate men and women but still allow both to experience natural Equality. It is in my conception Do you not believe any of these things are possible under yours?

In the same way African-Americans (and any other ethnic groups) could also enjoy Equality in these same areas with white Americans. But the FACT is they DO NOT! Just as in the same way women today in Western society do not…!

Further, those opportunities are BLOCKED or non-existent for them to obtain them. However, none of this really matters because, in your view, REAL equality is unobtainable?

Something which sort of puzzles me though is your expressed desire not to be considered racist. Why would that matter so much to you?

xPraetorius:“…According to MY definition of racism: “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race” I most definitely am NOT a racist….”

xPraetorius, if you are talking about the average Japanese person then I am not sure you have it right. In most cases it is the politicians that have this attitude and most Japanese people think Shoganai meaning (it can’t be helped). There are some things that foreigners do find as racist but many times for those Americans of European decent have the first taste of people who don’t want to sit next to them, think they are loud, or could be dangerous. Most of the time I hear from Japanese people they don’t want to sit next to a foreigner because they imagine they might have to speak English. (really like every foreigner speaks English).
Now if you are talking about Chinese, Koreans, and Ainu and Okinawa no hito you might have a point. Although they are not supposed to and they know better. In general if you are talking about Japanese it is mainly the Chinese they have a low opinion on. Yet, they know that the tourist bucks are coming from them and we will probably see a change in view in our lifetime. Korea because of historical frames but even that relationship as rocky as it is has improved over the last twenty years.
The Ainu, who finally got recognized as a minority but there culture has pretty much eroded away. They are working on rebuilding it but with so many of their elders dead it is hard.
Lower class, those who use to deal with dead things historically have had a harder lot. They still do because you can tell by last name or the area they live. They too have been gaining a lot more rights and freedom.
Okinawans, who are very political and work hard to move their standing up and get the base off of their land. Japan has its own problems yet they do celebrate many mixed ethnic children on tv.
Those traditional marginalized minorities are pushing out more and gaining more freedoms and rights. Plus it is more of the older grandmas and grandpas that think in this sort of way and they are slowly leaving us. Many of them have changed their minds over time because of societal pressures. Which in Japan the nail that sticks out gets hammer.
Yet never forget that it was Commodore Perry that brought in a lot of bad stereotypes about Americans to Japan. He even brought in Blackface he brought in a lot of our culture during his time period. History just a wonderful tool for understanding the some of the present situations. I don’t want to get into this topic more right now because I don’t have time.
I am shock that you have the time with your own blog to contribute so much to this one. I need to do more with my writings because although I like this blog it does take away from my own writing time.

This whole victory stuff is all in your head. It just shows that you are here to “win” the argument, not to learn or seek truth. Which means you are not all that serious to being with, confirming my decision to move on.

wow that was a real moment there, not a teaching moment but i sense something in the force there i wasn’t asked but i don’t feel this blog is like stormfront, that pile of sheiss is like a tech support forum with an end or focus to the implicit ‘bliltzkrieg’ of the name, white nationalism, no way dude. i don’t read that, maybe pulled 2 cached articles from there a long time ago, i spent like 4 hours on chimpout maybe and .5 hr on vdare, i can’t stomach that stuff no matter if i am not always politically correct

“In MY biology classes, we all learned very early on that everyone has the same amount of melanin, but that for black or brown people, it is more evenly distributed in the cells, causing the cells themselves to appear darker. Is that no longer true? If, however, it IS still true, then since everyone has the same amount of melanin, how is the DISTRIBUTION of it an important factor in the differences between the races?”

I’ll answer this as I’ve commented on this topic many times before on this blog.

What you’ve shared here is basically wrong, nonsense and misinformation. Lets start with what is correct first…

Yes…Its true we ALL have Melanin, even Albinos. Its fundamental to all living organisms.

Now for the nonsense: How can Melanin for Black or Brown people be: “…more evenly distributed in the cells, causing the cells themselves to appear darker.?

Surely the opposite would be true! If something “DARK” is more concentrated in one area and you evenly distribute it over a larger area wouldn’t this make it less concentrated and lighter?

How can we ALL have the same amount of Melanin if the concentrations which are present in organs like the skin showed marked differences in colour intensity? This again makes no-sense? 😦 Even a simple painting exercise, mixing colours, could demonstrate this!

Clearly, our concentrations of Melanin are not the same. Another observed phenomenon with lower melanin concentrations is that lighter and white skin (hands) can feel cold to the touch. I have personally shaken many cold hands of this nature. I have since learned it is the presence of sulphur concentrations (in the skin cells) which accounts for this. Higher concentrations of sulphur (in place of Melanin) also account for white skin.

Even you xPraetorius should be able to deduce that your assumed knowledge of Melanin is woefully inadequate. In fact it is really based on ignorance so you really are in no position to criticise someone like Dr Llaila Afrika…What would you even base this on?

I always find it funny that certain white people believe seriously that calling out injustice is being divisive or spreading injustice. Well, they are correct that it is divisive but only because instead of focusing on acknowledgement of the injustice and/or fighting the injustice certain white people seem invested in denying the injustice! This stance is breathtaking to me and highly infuriating. As far as racism requiring conscious intention, balderdash. Racism has been going on so long and is so much a part of this country’s fabric that it quite literally has a mind of its own. If you are a white person in America, you can’t help but hold racist ideas. In fact, this has been empirically proven (e.g., studies showing whites equate blacks with monkeys). You do not have to be donning a Klansman’s hood to be a racist or hold those attitudes. Good white people, even my own husband, have racist beliefs and slip up from time to time with some racist BS.

Since African people are highly melaninated, it causes them to be highly emotional psychic and spiritually sensitive. Therefore, Africans CAN FEEL Caucasians are deceitfully hiding their insincerity and are dependent on word order or a logical, rational thinking, which relies on word process. In other words, Caucasians feel that if something makes sense to them it must make sense to everyone. This is arrogance. This is part of their religious belief in the myth of White Supremacy.

First, I would agree this is a generalised statement just like the words: African and Caucasian, European, Black, white, Asian, POC are general descriptors too.

Africans can FEEL insincerity? Why take that seriously? Walk it through the thought process. First: Well, I guess that, since the implication is that ALL Caucasians are insincere all the time, this is simply self-fulfilling. If that’s true, then you’re saying that white racists’ “feeling” that blacks are inferior is a valid power of observation.

However, let’s take the “feeling” of others insincerity seriously. Hypothetically an African is in a conversation with a Caucasian. Let’s say the Aftrican “feels” the Caucasian is being insincere and deceitful. What, pray tell, is that feeling that OTHERS, even other blacks can understand? Is it a twinge, a pain somewhere in particular? Is is a tingling? Is it local or throughout the entire body? Is it different for everyone. Most importantly: if the African is accusing the Caucasian of insincerity and deceitfulness, then the African at LEAST disagrees with the white guy, and probably dislikes him. I don’t think you can prove to ANYONE that the African’s “feeling” of the white guy’s insincerity PRECEDED the disagreement or the dislike! In that case, it’s perfectly valid to say that the “feeling” is no more than a result of the African’s dislike or disagreement. Also, how does anyone know that the feeling is identifying insincerity, and not something else? Is the feeling infallible? So, the African accuses the Caucasian of lying (shorthand for: insincerity and deceitfulness) and the white guy denies it. Are you REALLY saying that there is a SCIENTIFIC basis — other than a lie detector, that is — of deciding which of the two is correct, and that SCIENTIFICALLY speaking, the melanin distribution in the African settles it?

LOTS of people — all people — have “feelings” when they are interacting with people they don’t like, or with whom they disagree. In every case, when I have a disagreement with someone, all SORTS of feelings course through me, depending frequently on what the other person says. I FREQUENTLY debated with a white colleague and experienced all sorts of feelings of frustration, triumph, annoyance, eagerness, enthusiasm, energy, dejection and more. I NEVER interpreted these feelings as coming from any source but myself. Since I have as much melanin as you, do I also, a white dude, have the same powers? I’m asking this seriously.

For example, I “feel” your sincerity in your post. I think you’re wrong about nearly everything, but you ARE, I believe, sincere. Does that mean that I have these same “melaninated” powers as you. I DO, after all, have as much melanin as you.

One more thought exercise: If you had approached a person on a European street in, say, 1491, and asked the guy, “Is the world flat?” The person would have answered perfectly sincerely, “Yes.” He’s have been wrong, but he’d have been sincere. I’m not sure how ACTUALLY useful this power of discerning sincerity REALLY is.

You said:

Lets suppose, for one moment, there could be some generalised truth in such a statement. You are hardly displaying the responses of someone genuinely open to receive it. You simply pronounce it as “…hooey…”

Me:
Yes, I did. Kwamla, in life we ALL have to discriminate. We all have to choose what to assimilate, what to ignore, what to study, to like to love, to accept, to reject. That’s called discrimination. We can’t all study everything. We have to make those choices. I have made the determination that this whole idea of black people having these seemingly magical powers is “hooey.” I admit that I could be wrong, but someone SOMEWHERE is going to have to make a MUCH more plausible argument than the passage fron the good Dr. LA.

I’ll ignore your “typical white arrogance,” in light of the fact that Matari’s post — and your agreement with it — seem to indicate that there is NO possibility of real communication between the races. Therefore you would have no possible way of knowing what’s typical of whites. 🙂

You said:

My concept of Equality does not call for people to be EXACTLY the same. This is the impositional notion of the “white universal standard” (Western model) which I made in an earlier comment to Matari. Such an artificial standard, I agree is, impractical, useless and effectively unobtainable, because it ignores valuable and important differences.

Me: Ok…then we all agree that since REAL, complete equality is impossible, then we can conclude only that the only disagreement is over the DEGREE of inequality that is acceptable. I think we’ve got to the goal. You, I suspect, disagree. I might suggest that you talk to my friend, the most powerful man in the world. He, at least, agrees with you, but while you’re speaking with him, check out the color of his skin.

You said:

– Is it possible for women to be paid the same rate as men for the same work? My reply: Why would women want to take a pay cut? If all other factors are equal, in other words, if you make an honest comparison, women make about $1.10 for every $1.00 a man makes.
– Is it possible for women to hold the same positions of responsibility over men. The same way men do over women? My reply: They do.
– Is it possible for women to have as much power over the rules that govern their lives as men? My reply: Since, women plainly have more power over their lives than men, why would women accept having less power?
-Is it possible for women to make as many decisions about where resources should go to assist countries as men do? My reply: They do.
-Is it possible for women to have just as much participation in sporting activities as men? My reply: They have more power. This an interesting example: Women are the ONLY ones with ACTUALLY exclusionary sports leagues. In none of the major sports is there any prohibition in the so-called “mens'” leagues is there a prohibition against women. Granted it was easy for men to make this true, but in Golf, tennis, basketball, hocket and football, the men put their money where their mouths were. Each has had much-ballyhooed events, tryouts etc for women, going as far as allowing women ACTUALLY to participate in the sport (golf). Each time, the women didn’t go very far. On the other hand, women don’t allow men in THEIR leagues for obvious reasons. There’s a funny story that Chris Evert tells. She said that to prepare for matches, she often used to play against her then husband, John Lloyd. At the time, she was ranked #1 in the world, and he was lower than #100. She said that it was rare for her to win even a point against her husband, and that used to make the women seem that much easier. There, there’s of course, the story of Annika Sorenstam, whom many consider the greatest woman golfer ever. After she failed to make the cut in a PGA tournament, her quote was something to the effect of: “Women don’t belong playing with the men.”

You said:

Its possible to acknowledge the differences that separate men and women but still allow both to experience natural Equality. It is in my conception Do you not believe any of these things are possible under yours?

In the same way African-Americans (and any other ethnic groups) could also enjoy Equality in these same areas with white Americans. But the FACT is they DO NOT! Just as in the same way women today in Western society do not…!

Further, those opportunities are BLOCKED or non-existent for them to obtain them. However, none of this really matters because, in your view, REAL equality is unobtainable?

My reply: In reply to the first paragraph, I don’t know whether men and women and blacks and whites can experience life “equally.” Equally satisfactorily? Equally rewardingly? Equally fulfillingly? Sure. Why not. Surely, all people experience life, however, DIFFERENTLY. Can the DIFFERENT be equal? Not in principal, obviously, but in light of my first sentence it can. So now we’re in semantics.

As to your second paragraph, I might point you again to my buddy the most powerful man in the world, as well as to countless fabulously wealthy black entertainers, actors, businesspeople, athletes, etc., etc., etc.

As to your third paragraph, I think that it’s obvious that there is a LOT of opportunity in this country. Oprah Winfrey should be able to assist in this.

You said :

Something which sort of puzzles me though is your expressed desire not to be considered racist. Why would that matter so much to you?

My reply: You HAVE kind of smoked me out a bit. I don’t REALLY care, but I DID do a kind of a test for Abagond’s readership and for Abagond himself. I challenged them to elevate their discourse, to apologize for their intemperate accusations and to challenge their own plainly locked-in preconceived notions. You are correct: People who don’t know me from Adam can accuse me of any kind of silliness they want to, and it doesn’t affect my self-esteem. However, it doesn’t change the fact that the REALLY ought to man-up and apologize for the slur. It WOULD be a sign of graciousness, humility, and maturity. NOT to do so, obviously, would be a sign of the opposite characteristics.

You WILL note, I assume, that I apologized several times for some intemperate remarks, and admitted immediately to some errors that I had made.

I always find it funny that certain white people believe seriously that calling out injustice is being divisive or spreading injustice. Well, they are correct that it is divisive but only because instead of focusing on acknowledgement of the injustice and/or fighting the injustice certain white people seem invested in denying the injustice! This stance is breathtaking to me and highly infuriating. As far as racism requiring conscious intention, balderdash. Racism has been going on so long and is so much a part of this country’s fabric that it quite literally has a mind of its own. If you are a white person in America, you can’t help but hold racist ideas. In fact, this has been empirically proven (e.g., studies showing whites equate blacks with monkeys). You do not have to be donning a Klansman’s hood to be a racist or hold those attitudes. Good white people, even my own husband, have racist beliefs and slip up from time to time with some racist BS.

xPraetorius:
Welcome to the bleating herd, poetess!

I addressed all your nonsensical points many times before. Many, MANY times before; both in this thread and in Abagond’s Hitler thread.

Couple quick corrections: Racism is not a living entity, so can’t, obviously, “quite literally have a mind of its own.” Figuratively, sure, but not “quite literally.” Please think a bit more about what you write.

Furthermore, there is not a study anywhere, that anyone takes seriously, that has ever shown empirically that “If you are a white person in America, you can’t help but hold racist ideas.” That is, of course, a nonsense statement.

You call yourself “poetess;” did you maybe do poorly in language studies in school?

“In MY biology classes, we all learned very early on that everyone has the same amount of melanin, but that for black or brown people, it is more evenly distributed in the cells, causing the cells themselves to appear darker. Is that no longer true? If, however, it IS still true, then since everyone has the same amount of melanin, how is the DISTRIBUTION of it an important factor in the differences between the races?”

I’ll answer this as I’ve commented on this topic many times before on this blog.

What you’ve shared here is basically wrong, nonsense and misinformation. Lets start with what is correct first…

Yes…Its true we ALL have Melanin, even Albinos. Its fundamental to all living organisms. My reply: Not spiders, apparently.

Now for the nonsense: How can Melanin for Black or Brown people be: “…more evenly distributed in the cells, causing the cells themselves to appear darker.? My reply: My recollection from then (it was more than 40 years ago…:) ) was that we all had as much melanin as anyone else, but that in lighter-skinned people, it was concentrated in tiny spots within the cells. As, for example, we white dudes tan, it’s because the melanin spreads out to protect the rest of the skin from the U/V of sunlight. Rough recollection.

Surely the opposite would be true! If something “DARK” is more concentrated in one area and you evenly distribute it over a larger area wouldn’t this make it less concentrated and lighter? My reply: Not necessarily if the melanin is very concentrated in a tiny dot in lighter-skinned people, but more spread out in darker-skinned people.

How can we ALL have the same amount of Melanin if the concentrations which are present in organs like the skin showed marked differences in colour intensity? This again makes no-sense? 😦 Even a simple painting exercise, mixing colours, could demonstrate this! My reply: I’m a painter by avocation, so I can tell you that concentration is EVERYTHING in this regard. 🙂

Clearly, our concentrations of Melanin are not the same. Another observed phenomenon with lower melanin concentrations is that lighter and white skin (hands) can feel cold to the touch. I have personally shaken many cold hands of this nature. I have since learned it is the presence of sulphur concentrations (in the skin cells) which accounts for this. Higher concentrations of sulphur (in place of Melanin) also account for white skin. My reply: Ok…not familiar with all this, so I’ll take your word for it until I see contradictory evidence.

Even you xPraetorius should be able to deduce that your assumed knowledge of Melanin is woefully inadequate. My reply: Very possible. It’s why I asked the question in the first place. I thought I made it clear that it was a serious question.

In fact it is really based on ignorance so you really are in no position to criticise someone like Dr Llaila Afrika…What would you even base this on? My reply: Dr. LA said that the melanin in black people’s bodies gives them some abilities that appear supernatural. I question this, as seeming pretty unlikely in the best case, and ridiculous nonsense in the worst. Again, I’ll accept ANY evidence that contradicts me, but in the absence of such evidence, the assertion that blacks can “feel” and then identify white insincerity and deceitfulness strike me as pseudo-intellectual hooey and snake-oil. I suspect, however, that Dr. Afrika makes a pretty good living from convincing people of these things! 🙂

Assumed superiority of knowledge ?

xPraetorius:
First: Obviously no assumed superiority. I simply asked the question, after describing what we had learned early on in bio classes. You can assume, if you’d like to, that this was some sort of eurocentric teaching, but I suspect it’s simply that science has progressed since then, and melanin is better understood now.

Further to the melanin thing, the Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin) seems to indicate that there are different types and distributions in different peoples, but that dark-skinned people have more eumelanin. Makes sense. I accept your correction.

However, there were no indications of any magic powers associated with melanin. Just that Parkinson’s disease in lighter-skinned peoples appears to be associated with a lack of a certain type of melanin, and that Vitamin D deficiencies in darker-skinned people are associated with too much melanin.

I am also asking whether you and Matari are suggesting that white people are psychotics and racists merely because of the color of their skin. Can you clarify?

I will take your word for it, but in that you had no point in really responding for him/her.

“I’ve also spoken with others who’ve spent time elsewhere, who report similar states of mind, regardless of whether the majority ethnicity was “white” or not.”

Sharina:

LMFAO. I find it gut twistingly hilarious that you are using this to conclude that “whites are REALLY the least racist ethnicity on the planet.” Yet was constantly trying to tell others (including myself) that certain situations…how did you put it…did not reflect the larger. ROFL!!

xPraetorius:
I believe I said it “supports” my contention that white people are the least racist ethnicity in the country.

Yes, here’s my quote: “This nicely supports one of my sub-conclusions: whites are REALLY the least racist ethnicity on the planet. I think it’s obvious that whites are the least racist ethnicity in America.”

You’ll note that I plainly used the word “supports,” not “proves.”

I use that and a whole raft of other evidence to CONCLUDE that whites are the least racist, etc.

As I might have mentioned before, I am not competing to win… I just want to know. When I see a blatantly ignorant, wacky post like Abagond’s Hitler one — that plainly contributes to greater ignorance — it’s a good idea to try to counter it. When someone makes the ugly insinuations that Abagond made, yep, I get a bit annoyed. I’m right to.

You chastised me for my tone upon entering into the discussion. Well, the others returned that tone and a whole lot more with their accusations and name-calling and purple-with-rage denunciations. It certainly gave an indication of their character.

However, their tone was of a kind with the post, so I kind of figured it would go that way. I wasn’t surprised.

@Sharina: maybe if you were to spend a little less time poring over what I say in search of gotchas and small inconsistencies, and a little MORE time in researching REAL rebuttals to me, you’d do better.

Oh, Sharina: one more thing. As regards tiandi’s post, I thought it was worthwhile point to make: that in other countries, other peoples don’t view racism the same way we do. Some, in fact, view it as a natural, positive aspect of the human condition.

Much of our belief that racism is bad comes from western European culture and Christianity.

This whole victory stuff is all in your head. It just shows that you are here to “win” the argument, not to learn or seek truth. Which means you are not all that serious to being with, confirming my decision to move on.

xPraetorius, if you are talking about the average Japanese person then I am not sure you have it right. In most cases it is the politicians that have this attitude and most Japanese people think Shoganai meaning (it can’t be helped). There are some things that foreigners do find as racist but many times for those Americans of European descent have the first taste of people who don’t want to sit next to them, think they are loud, or could be dangerous. Most of the time I hear from Japanese people they don’t want to sit next to a foreigner because they imagine they might have to speak English. (really like every foreigner speaks English).

Now if you are talking about Chinese, Koreans, and Ainu and Okinawa no hito you might have a point. Although they are not supposed to and they know better. In general if you are talking about Japanese it is mainly the Chinese they have a low opinion on. Yet, they know that the tourist bucks are coming from them and we will probably see a change in view in our lifetime. Korea because of historical frames but even that relationship as rocky as it is has improved over the last twenty years.

The Ainu, who finally got recognized as a minority but there culture has pretty much eroded away. They are working on rebuilding it but with so many of their elders dead it is hard.

Lower class, those who use to deal with dead things historically have had a harder lot. They still do because you can tell by last name or the area they live. They too have been gaining a lot more rights and freedom.

Okinawans, who are very political and work hard to move their standing up and get the base off of their land. Japan has its own problems yet they do celebrate many mixed ethnic children on tv.

Those traditional marginalized minorities are pushing out more and gaining more freedoms and rights. Plus it is more of the older grandmas and grandpas that think in this sort of way and they are slowly leaving us. Many of them have changed their minds over time because of societal pressures. Which in Japan the nail that sticks out gets hammer.

Yet never forget that it was Commodore Perry that brought in a lot of bad stereotypes about Americans to Japan. He even brought in Blackface he brought in a lot of our culture during his time period. History just a wonderful tool for understanding the some of the present situations. I don’t want to get into this topic more right now because I don’t have time.

I am shock that you have the time with your own blog to contribute so much to this one. I need to do more with my writings because although I like this blog it does take away from my own writing time.

xPraetorius:
@King. Thanks for the additional perspective. I had heard most of these things from my friend, with some small differences, and additional or different analysis. It’s an obvious truth that every civilization views race and racism differently from every other civilization. Some are less passionate about it, others more so. I wouldn’t be surprised if our society were the MOST passionate about it, without being in a civil war.

@ xPraetorius
“I’ve also spoken with others who’ve spent time elsewhere, who report similar states of mind, regardless of whether the majority ethnicity was “white” or not.”—–I don’t care. Please point to where I contended on this matter? Please quote me in regards to this? If you want to bring it up as some type of point then guess what hypocrite. Others have made this same statement in which you proceeded to argue they were wrong based on just this. So tell me what point are you making?

“As I might have mentioned before, I am not competing to win… I just want to know. When I see a blatantly ignorant, wacky post like Abagond’s Hitler one — that plainly contributes to greater ignorance — it’s a good idea to try to counter it. When someone makes the ugly insinuations that Abagond made, yep, I get a bit annoyed. I’m right to. “—Where did I say anything in that post about you looking to win? If you are then hey…if you are not then hey. I am also not saying you do not have a right to, but I am clearing laughing at the fact that in this you have the nerve to critique actions you clearly find little or no problem with using yourself.

“maybe if you were to spend a little less time poring over what I say in search of gotchas and small inconsistencies, and a little MORE time in researching REAL rebuttals to me, you’d do better.”—LMFAO. Small inconsistencies that is rich. Why would one need to research a rebuttal when all I have to do is read your post and find all the material I need. I am better. Which is why while you are constantly repeating circle arguments in hope someone will fold I am here laughing at it all. 

“Oh, Sharina: one more thing. As regards tiandi’s post, I thought it was worthwhile point to make: that in other countries, other peoples don’t view racism the same way we do. Some, in fact, view it as a natural, positive aspect of the human condition.”—-That is great, because I don’t remember holding a belief that other countries were not racist or did not have their own issues, but I do see like most posts that it was a means for you to further put words in my mouth and tell me what I said or think. So nothing really new.

@ xPraetorius
“I’ve also spoken with others who’ve spent time elsewhere, who report similar states of mind, regardless of whether the majority ethnicity was “white” or not.” Sharina: I don’t care. Please point to where I contended on this matter? Please quote me in regards to this? If you want to bring it up as some type of point then guess what hypocrite. Others have made this same statement in which you proceeded to argue they were wrong based on just this. So tell me what point are you making?

xPraetorius:
Maybe you didn’t. If so, and I misunderstood, I apologize.

Sharina said:

“As I might have mentioned before, I am not competing to win… I just want to know. When I see a blatantly ignorant, wacky post like Abagond’s Hitler one — that plainly contributes to greater ignorance — it’s a good idea to try to counter it. When someone makes the ugly insinuations that Abagond made, yep, I get a bit annoyed. I’m right to. “—Where did I say anything in that post about you looking to win? If you are then hey…if you are not then hey. I am also not saying you do not have a right to, but I am clearing laughing at the fact that in this you have the nerve to critique actions you clearly find little or no problem with using yourself.

xPraetorius:
Nope. I made quite plain, when I was using something such as a personal anecdote, that it was NOT dispositive, that all it did was support my point of view. I DID use quite a bit that is dispositive: the $17 trillion, etc., etc… The people using personal anecdotes — BW, for example, used ONLY personal anecdotes. Alone, they prove nothing but that you know some personal anecdotes.

Sharina:

“maybe if you were to spend a little less time poring over what I say in search of gotchas and small inconsistencies, and a little MORE time in researching REAL rebuttals to me, you’d do better.” Sharina: LMFAO. Small inconsistencies that is rich. Why would one need to research a rebuttal when all I have to do is read your post and find all the material I need. [Me: Ok..can you point some out?] I am better. Which is why while you are constantly repeating circle arguments in hope someone will fold I am here laughing at it all.

That was the OTHER point…they constantly came at me with personal anecdotes, unsupported speculation, statements about how bad white people were long ago in history…almost NOTHING at all addressing the situation at a country-wide level TODAY. If you look at my various arguments:
• the famous “five points”
• the $17 trillion
• the long list of black people who have prospered, and in some cases, become fabulously powerful and wealthy.
• The centuries-long quest to eradicate prejudice of any kind from the thinking of white people.

All these things are arguments at the scale of the topic: the state of white racism in America. Not the state of individual white racists around the country. Not the state of YOUR relationship with white people. The state of the whole darned thing. Not Abagond’s and his pals’ desire to keep race hostility alive despite the fact that most white people have long outgrown racism. If you prefer, white people just “got over it.”

Here are a few links that document actual systematic racism in the U.S:

“Oh, Sharina: one more thing. As regards tiandi’s post, I thought it was worthwhile point to make: that in other countries, other peoples don’t view racism the same way we do. Some, in fact, view it as a natural, positive aspect of the human condition.”—-That is great, because I don’t remember holding a belief that other countries were not racist or did not have their own issues, but I do see like most posts that it was a means for you to further put words in my mouth and tell me what I said or think. So nothing really new.

xPraetorius:
@Sharina: Please re-read. You’ll see that at no time did I try to put words into your mouth pertaining to the tiandi post. I might have inadvertently at other times, but if you’ll recall, if You called me on it, and I agreed, I immediately apologized.

So are you tiandi? I guess you forgot to switch out profiles before you responded. I was not asking you what you are and are not trying to prove because as you can see in this post I know how to put @ the person I choose to respond to.

You make any and everything about YOU, so in the art of serious discussion I really can’t take much of what you say seriously because of continuous delusional episodes. This is not to be mean but to be serious.

sharina said:
“You call yourself “poetess;” did you maybe do poorly in language studies in school?”—Another personal attack that he will likely not apologize for but will continue to beg others to apologize to him.

xPraetorius:
@Sharina: re-read poetess’ post. You’ll see that I was more than justified in being snarky.

“I’m glad you’re amused. I am too. In the meantime, I repeat my suggestion.”—-Taking your suggestion would require for me to see myself as one in need to do such. I don’t, because you proved for me most if not all of what I was saying. 🙂

And by the way: I agree with v8driver: the declension seems to be wrong.

xPraetorius:
This one is too funny! Again, I’ll let you know whether I intended to decline the name, and what declension I — really we — intended, or didn’t intend to use. Until you know our group’s intention, you can’t possibly know whether the declension is correct.

Why respond to this obviously side question? This is a good example of the Abagondian modus operandi(*): (1) Have insufficient information about something, (2) draw conclusion(s) based on the deficient information (3), defend the conclusion forever.

I could prove that the declension is correct — and, after all, my group and I are the only authorities on the meaning or purpose of the name — and the Abagondian will tell me I’m wrong, and that I’m a stupid, racist liar. That is the Abagondian way!

🙂

Best,

— x

(*) Is this the proper declension? Doesn’t matter; “modus operandi” is now in such common use in English that there’s no point declining when using it in English.

“Nope. It was just mean. I’m plainly not delusional.”—At this point I don’t know that to be true. You see things in posts that are just not there. You constantly find yourself putting words in my mouth. So what would you call that? I don’t call that a mistake.

” re-read poetess’ post. You’ll see that I was more than justified in being snarky.”—I read what she said and no you were not justified. You want to feel justified. You think every statement or words are a direct attack at you. You feel that you have the right and that others do not. You feel you are owed an apology and others are owed nothing. I get it. I see it..

Yes, according to me. Plainly. Your viewpoint, on the other hand, is according to you.

What an egocentric response. I should just agree with you because you say so. Wow.

Well, it’s because I back I back my points up. I point to OBVIOUSLY objective facts like government programs, a black President, LOTS of HUGELY wealthy blacks like Oprah, Randall Robinson, countless entertainers, actors and actresses, musicians, and politicians all across the country. After that, I was unable to obtain a simple declaration from ANYONE here that all that represents “progress.” For resw77, it’s no progress at all, or something — his thinking is too murky to be deciphered. For Abagond, it’s “Magical,” so somehow invalid. And for you, BW, it’s simply beside-the-point. No one else addressed the question.

Hopefully, if my earlier comment passes, I’ll show you some links to back up my statements.

I saw your list of wealthy blacks briefly, but the list you gave was awfully short, especially considering making a list of wealthy whites and comparing the two.

Anywho, there are rich black people who have “made it”, but it still doesn’t prove that racism is no longer a big problem. If I’ve made a few people who are atheists, it doesn’t prove that all people are atheist.

It certainly doesn’t prove that racism is no longer a factor if you are part of the middle and upper classes. It certainly wasn’t the case of Pro. Henry Louis Gates who was arrested outside his home because a woman – a white woman – thought he was trying to burglarize someone’s house. Or as the case with Oprah Winfrey who, when trying to buy that Swiss handbag, was told she couldn’t afford it. And how about ?uestlove who admitted to being profiled numerous times by the NYPD.

I will make this as calmly as possible.

The reason why my tone was was abrasive at the beginning was something you may not likely understand. It was because your initial and following responses were condescending. If you wanted this to be a respectful discussion, you don’t go around claiming that opposing views are ludicrous and insignificant.

It’s obvious that your motive here is not to learn or be taught, or even to exchange ideas. Your purpose seems to be about dominating a topic (Was Hitler Evil). That in itself is a white privilege motive. The post was a for-POC by a POC topic in a space where most of what we get from the mainstream come from the perspective of white people. You coming in to shift the topic was disrespectful no matter what the reason was.

Just because you decide on what racism is doesn’t mean that it’s true, nor does it magically vanish the actual systemic and structural racism that actually does exist. In fact your “It’s true because I say so” is white supremacy talking. Taking over a topic by POC for POC in order to protect or defend white people is a divide and conquer tactic.

I also believe that you take some kind of crude enjoyment for your remarks. Whether you realize it or not, that is insulting to the rest of us. And whether you want to admit it or not, that is also a sign of white supremacy, getting enjoyment at the expense of POC.

You may feel that what I’ve said was attacking you, and that we owe you an apology, but how can we apologize for someone who initiated the attack and proceeded with more attacks? Why should we apologize to you, but you shouldn’t have to apologize to us?

this was an unforgetable experiance and put me at the very heart of Afro diasporic culture and everything Ive tried to talk about on this blog…

I cant write long so Ill have to make some quick comments

There are some things you have said that I can agree with , but , other things I dont feel comfortable at all…I cant tell if its Evangelical, maybe because of your stance on kids and string bikinis..and.your contention that racism doesnt exist in a lot of white Americans doesnt sit well for me at all…

You should go to a thread on here where it was for black people only, fine with me, and, they spoke of their first experiance with racism…there were many testimonies…some said that a teacher put them down along the way in a racist manner…

You mention celebrities and stars…there were black American entertainers who were succesful at the hight of Jim Crow and lynchings, hugely succesful…its doesnt mean anything if blocks of black Americans are suffering on the ground leval, and Ive seen this close up…white people play the clique good ole b oy game to the max…

Some of your opinions about liberals are strange and rub me the wrong way…I consider myself liberal, but, I dont like the far left or right equaly…

I dont think you are a racist, I think you are naive about racism

And , you raise some flags in me, but, hey, other commenters on here raise flags in me also, like people who have made scrutinising and negative statements about interracial sex…that disgust me…and, I can agree with those people on other things

or , the things I despise on the “Booty Dancing” thread, which, I have a feeling, you and me wouldnt see eye to eye on…but I agree with those people on other things

and, I have banged my head over here with some people on American foreign policy issues..I live in a country that has a lot of people who are anti American, and Ive learned to do some serious research on where I live and , I found that a lot of anti Americanism was just total bs based on lies and half truths, along with I found out the real dirt we did do which makes any claims of fighting for democracy around the world , a sham,

I think Abagond made a great point about where the average white person’s head was at in the 60’s, and what was accepted then

where I do disagree with some posters on here that white people are some devil encarnate, or that whites are the most violent of all history, I totaly see white racism in America alive and well in a lot of whites…I also know a lot of whites were always there for black Americans, and put their lives on the line..maybe the government know they really werent fighting to end slavery, a whole lot of northern whites went to their deaths thinking that is what they were doing, fighting to end slavery and the Confederacy was definitly fighting to keep slavery

but I recently passed through the states and was disgusted to see lots of whites arguing that if black Americans can use the n word why cant they? only a totaly ignorant person cant figure that out, I mean there is a certain portion of white American society that is carrying on the racist position , with new phrases to hide it…I see lots of change that needs to happen still

I personally don’t think anyone in here should take what he says as an insult because he is not one to be really taken seriously. The truth of the matter is people believe what they want to believe and as I stated what one believes and what the truth is are two different things. How often on these blogs have we ran across people who believe one thing, you provide evidence, and they still say “no that is not right?” How often do we meet people who engage in confirmation bias?

@ B.R.

“You should go to a thread on here where it was for black people only, fine with me, and, they spoke of their first experiance with racism…there were many testimonies…some said that a teacher put them down along the way in a racist manner…”—i believe I did mention this to him before.

I have the same concerns as you in regards to some of the claims he is making. The mind reading while telling others not to mind read or other type of hypocrisy. And yes I don’t trust a hypocrite by habit.

You may feel that what I’ve said was attacking you, and that we owe you an apology, but how can we apologize for someone who initiated the attack and proceeded with more attacks? Why should we apologize to you, but you shouldn’t have to apologize to us?

xPraetorius:
You should apologize for calling me a racist. You’ll note that I attacked on one in my first post, but directed my attention to Abagond’s offensive post. I challenged your ideas; you attacked me.

Oh, and I have apologized to several people on this blog. Some several times. Ask Sharina. If she’s honest, she’ll acknowledge that I have apologized to her, AND that she’s apologized to me.

I even apologized to YOU, BW, on my blog. Anyway, you and many others owe me a specific apology for calling me a racist.

Here’s the declaration you should agee to:

“Dear Mr. x: On behalf of the participants in this blog, I’m sincerely sorry that many of us called you a racist. While many of us may disagree with what you say, you have neither said nor done anything here (<– scope is important) that could possibly lead to a conclusion that you are a racist (<– that one's kind of important). The rudeness many of us displayed is always uncalled for, and the accusations we made were toxic and inexcusable (<– it's important to recognize that), and we will do our best to avoid such behavior in the future. (<– 'Cause no apology's worth anything without some kind of indication that one will stop the offending behavior.) I challenge the other participants in this blog's various discussions to endorse this declaration as well." (<– 'Cause you can't REALLY speak on behalf of everyone until they grant you permission)

I proposed it to Abagond, but he ignored it. I suspect that means he doesn't endorse it.

I personally don’t think anyone in here should take what he says as an insult because he is not one to be really taken seriously. The truth of the matter is people believe what they want to believe and as I stated what one believes and what the truth is are two different things. How often on these blogs have we ran across people who believe one thing, you provide evidence, and they still say “no that is not right?” How often do we meet people who engage in confirmation bias?

I see what you mean, but even if he is not to be taken seriously, that doesn’t make it any less demeaning. We’ve seen those like him before, and each time is frustrating to hear the same broken arguments from different drones. Even though we’ve seen it all before, it’s still tiring that it continues to persist unabated with more and more people with the same mentality.

“Oh, and I have apologized to several people on this blog. Some several times. Ask Sharina. If she’s honest, she’ll acknowledge that I have apologized to her, AND that she’s apologized to me”—-Sure you apologized for putting words in my mouth. Don’t really see where I am or have disputed this.

I personally don’t think anyone in here should take what he says as an insult because he is not one to be really taken seriously.

xPraetorius:
Why, Sharina, because YOU say so? You STILL focus on whether or not you can find inconsistencies or circular arguments or a typo here or a misused word there. Keep going for the “gotchas” and avoid addressing things with any substance.

Sharina continues:

The truth of the matter is people believe what they want to believe and as I stated what one believes and what the truth is are two different things.

xPraetorius: This is true of all people and of all people’s beliefs.

Sharina continues:

How often on these blogs have we ran across people who believe one thing, you provide evidence, and they still say “no that is not right?” How often do we meet people who engage in confirmation bias?

xPraetorius:
Are you really trying to tell me that we shouldn’t want to believe what we believe? That we all ought simply to change our minds? Or is it only people who disagree with you who need to change their minds? In your reasoning, the fact that no one here has changed his or her mind to agree with me, simply proves MY point. You’re ALL obviously engaging in “confirmation bias.” Cut it out.

Sharina continues:

(quoting B. R.) @ B.R.
“You should go to a thread on here where it was for black people only, fine with me, and, they spoke of their first experiance with racism…there were many testimonies…some said that a teacher put them down along the way in a racist manner…”—i believe I did mention this to him before.

Sharina continues:

I have the same concerns as you in regards to some of the claims he is making. The mind reading while telling others not to mind read or other type of hypocrisy. And yes I don’t trust a hypocrite by habit.

xPraetorius:
@Sharina, @Sharina, @Sharina…One thing, I am most definitely NOT is a hypocrite! However, even if I were, it wouldn’t change the the truth or falseness of one word of what I’ve said. 🙂

Nor, are you aware of my “habits.” And, the “mind-reading” charge is just funny. On this blog, you’re DROWNING in people telling you ALL about what white people thing, feel, want and need, and you’re worried about lil’ ol’ me? You’re kidding, right?!?

sharina
“Oh, and I have apologized to several people on this blog. Some several times. Ask Sharina. If she’s honest, she’ll acknowledge that I have apologized to her, AND that she’s apologized to me”—-Sure you apologized for putting words in my mouth. Don’t really see where I am or have disputed this.

“I see what you mean, but even if he is not to be taken seriously, that doesn’t make it any less demeaning. We’ve seen those like him before, and each time is frustrating to hear the same broken arguments from different drones. Even though we’ve seen it all before, it’s still tiring that it continues to persist unabated with more and more people with the same mentality.”—I get what you are saying. It can be tiring.

“If you indeed apologize as you say, it doesn’t seem sincere as you continue in your fun”—The sincerity leaves the moment the action is continued.

“Why, Sharina, because YOU say so? You STILL focus on whether or not you can find inconsistencies or circular arguments or a typo here or a misused word there. Keep going for the “gotchas” and avoid addressing things with any substance.”—Nope because I already made my point on your blog,so why should I come here and just repeat it. When did I harp on your typos? when did I harp on misused words? What did I say about inconsistencies? The only thing you said here that I actual did (I guess you believe all black people are the same) is your arguments are going in a circle and I don’t believe I said those exact words.

“Are you really trying to tell me that we shouldn’t want to believe what we believe? That we all ought simply to change our minds? Or is it only people who disagree with you who need to change their minds? In your reasoning, the fact that no one here has changed his or her mind to agree with me, simply proves MY point. You’re ALL obviously engaging in “confirmation bias.” Cut it out.”—So do point to where I said that one shouldn’t? Point to where i said you should change your mind? What reasoning is that? I see questions being asked to Brothawolf. I see you determining what I mean by them. So I guess once again you can deduce where I am going with this.

“Nor, are you aware of my “habits.” And, the “mind-reading” charge is just funny. On this blog, you’re DROWNING in people telling you ALL about what white people thing, feel, want and need, and you’re worried about lil’ ol’ me? You’re kidding, right?!?”—Considering that I chose to judge people based on the individual…what they say and what I experience will not mean much to me. I just don’t discount their experiences.

“I see what you mean, but even if he is not to be taken seriously, that doesn’t make it any less demeaning. We’ve seen those like him before, and each time is frustrating to hear the same broken arguments from different drones. Even though we’ve seen it all before, it’s still tiring that it continues to persist unabated with more and more people with the same mentality.”—I get what you are saying. It can be tiring.

“If you indeed apologize as you say, it doesn’t seem sincere as you continue in your fun”—The sincerity leaves the moment the action is continued.

@Sharina: again, the sincerity or not of any apologies I’ve offered is perfectly irrelevant to the point that BW accused an innocent man of racism, and if he were half a man, he’d have the decency to apologize.

“again, the sincerity or not of any apologies I’ve offered is perfectly irrelevant to the point that BW accused an innocent man of racism, and if he were half a man, he’d have the decency to apologize. “—Like I said to you previously. If he is not apologizing then he is not sorry for it. At this point you asking him or trying to coax him into doing it, then it will not be sincere nor will it be of his own doing. It would be a half azz apology to shut you up.

I also believe that you take some kind of crude enjoyment for your remarks. Whether you realize it or not, that is insulting to the rest of us. And whether you want to admit it or not, that is also a sign of white supremacy, getting enjoyment at the expense of POC.

xPraetorius:
I have never derived any enjoyment at the expense of anyone else in my life. Furthermore, you called me a racist. Do you really think that you can just whack someone upside the head with the most toxic accusation in America today, and that person shouldn’t respond? Were you brought up in a barn? What kind of manners to you have?!?

Sorry: You opened the door to getting the relatively mild insults I’ve tossed back at you. I hoped you learned a lesson in basic human decency and manners. I suspect not, but I hope so.

@Sharina: **sigh** It’s like talking to a child. Ready? My sincerity in other apologies to other people is perfectly irrelevant to BW’s need to clear his conscience and apologize to me. End of the sincerity topic.

“**sigh** It’s like talking to a child. Ready? My sincerity in other apologies to other people is perfectly irrelevant to BW’s need to clear his conscience and apologize to me. End of the sincerity topic.”—Talking to you is like talking to a house plant. I am not talking about other people. Read what I said and not what YOU keep thinking I said.

This is what I said with a little help indicators so it will be clear.

“Like I said to you previously. If he (brothawolf) is not apologizing then he (brothawolf) is not sorry for it. At this point you asking him (brothawolf) or trying to coax him (brothawolf) into doing it, then it will not be sincere nor will it be of his (brothawolf) own doing. It would be a half azz apology to shut you up.

Whatever. I suspect you are the LAST person who could EVER serve to assess my sincerity! 🙂

Furthermore, my sincerity or lack thereof, is perfectly irrelevant. If I’m insincere, then you still accused an innocent, but insincere, man of racism.

Yep. I continue to have fun. You are one of the more fun fish in this particular barrel.

Let’s get one thing straight. I was not put on this Earth to serve you. And at this point, I do agree that your sincerity, or lack thereof, is irrelevant just like your constant begging for us to give in and apologize.

Are you really trying to tell me that we shouldn’t want to believe what we believe? That we all ought simply to change our minds? Or is it only people who disagree with you who need to change their minds? In your reasoning, the fact that no one here has changed his or her mind to agree with me, simply proves MY point. You’re ALL obviously engaging in “confirmation bias.” Cut it out.

That’s why I shouldn’t apologize for what I think and know to be the truth. And I don’t expect you to apologize for what you think is true or not. What I have a problem with is you trying to make everyone think the same way you do and shame them for refusing to do so.

You may consider this as an attack on your person, but I find that childish. Yes, you consider my tone with you was harsh and I did called you a racist, but I explained why it was so. I didn’t reply with a ‘just cause’ response, nor did I admit getting some jollies out of it because I don’t. I even provided links to some reports and articles that you will see if my comment passes the moderation, one of which I took a page from your book and used Wikipedia seeing as how you credit that as a viable source.

You seriously can’t or won’t grasp the hypocrisy in your last statement. You accuse us of confirmation biases, but you’re proving one yourself. You seriously don’t see the irony in that?

I have never derived any enjoyment at the expense of anyone else in my life. Furthermore, you called me a racist. Do you really think that you can just whack someone upside the head with the most toxic accusation in America today, and that person shouldn’t respond? Were you brought up in a barn? What kind of manners to you have?!?

Sorry: You opened the door to getting the relatively mild insults I’ve tossed back at you. I hoped you learned a lesson in basic human decency and manners. I suspect not, but I hope so.

Your hypocrisy and victim peddling seems to know no bounds. You continue to blame me for hurting you calling you a racist. Yet, you take no responsibility for your end of condemnation.

The moment you posted the first comment in the other article was the moment this back-and-forth started. I responded to that response. And you can’t tell me that you didn’t expect one or that one was harsh in its tone.

“Why, Sharina, because YOU say so? You STILL focus on whether or not you can find inconsistencies or circular arguments or a typo here or a misused word there. Keep going for the “gotchas” and avoid addressing things with any substance.”—Nope because I already made my point on your blog,so why should I come here and just repeat it. When did I harp on your typos? when did I harp on misused words? What did I say about inconsistencies? The only thing you said here that I actual did (I guess you believe all black people are the same) is your arguments are going in a circle and I don’t believe I said those exact words.

xPraetorius:
@Sharina: the harping on misused words, etc is ALL you do. Please feel free to present a substantive argument.

Sharina continued:

“Are you really trying to tell me that we shouldn’t want to believe what we believe? That we all ought simply to change our minds? Or is it only people who disagree with you who need to change their minds? In your reasoning, the fact that no one here has changed his or her mind to agree with me, simply proves MY point. You’re ALL obviously engaging in “confirmation bias.” Cut it out.”—So do point to where I said that one shouldn’t? Point to where i said you should change your mind? [My point: you said “people believe what they want to believe. I’m trying to get you to quit with the throwaways.] What reasoning is that? I see questions being asked to Brothawolf. I see you determining what I mean by them. So I guess once again you can deduce where I am going with this.

Sharina continued:

“Nor, are you aware of my “habits.” And, the “mind-reading” charge is just funny. On this blog, you’re DROWNING in people telling you ALL about what white people thing, feel, want and need, and you’re worried about lil’ ol’ me? You’re kidding, right?!?”—Considering that I chose to judge people based on the individual…what they say and what I experience will not mean much to me. I just don’t discount their experiences.

xPraetorius:
Whatever: you said I read minds, and that was just funny.

I have never derived any enjoyment at the expense of anyone else in my life. Furthermore, you called me a racist. Do you really think that you can just whack someone upside the head with the most toxic accusation in America today, and that person shouldn’t respond? Were you brought up in a barn? What kind of manners to you have?!?

Sorry: You opened the door to getting the relatively mild insults I’ve tossed back at you. I hoped you learned a lesson in basic human decency and manners. I suspect not, but I hope so.

Your hypocrisy and victim peddling seems to know no bounds. You continue to blame me for hurting you calling you a racist. Yet, you take no responsibility for your end of condemnation.

The moment you posted the first comment in the other article was the moment this back-and-forth started. I responded to that response. And you can’t tell me that you didn’t expect one or that one was harsh in its tone.

xPraetorius:
I never said you hurt me. I did say you should clear your conscience. I invite you to do so again.

And, again, for what the thousandth time? My tone was harsh. It was directed at Abagond’s post that equated Hitler with white people and white people with Hitler. My original post was, actually, insufficiently harsh.

sharina said:
This is what I said with a little help indicators so it will be clear.

“Like I said to you previously. If he (brothawolf) is not apologizing then he (brothawolf) is not sorry for it. At this point you asking him (brothawolf) or trying to coax him (brothawolf) into doing it, then it will not be sincere nor will it be of his (brothawolf) own doing. It would be a half azz apology to shut you up.

“**sigh** It’s like talking to a child. Ready? My sincerity in other apologies to other people is perfectly irrelevant to BW’s need to clear his conscience and apologize to me. End of the sincerity topic.”—Talking to you is like talking to a house plant. I am not talking about other people. Read what I said and not what YOU keep thinking I said.

“the harping on misused words, etc is ALL you do. Please feel free to present a substantive argument.”—So then you have no problem quoting where I have done this. I admitted to what I have done, but you are now accusing me of something I haven’t. Again I made my point on your blog and oddly enough you proved it without knowing. So i am good. 🙂

“Whatever: you said I read minds, and that was just funny.”—Deflection. Check.

I never said you hurt me. I did say you should clear your conscience. I invite you to do so again.

And, again, for what the thousandth time? My tone was harsh. It was directed at Abagond’s post that equated Hitler with white people and white people with Hitler. My original post was, actually, insufficiently harsh.

You DID say I attacked you and that you wanted me so to stop calling you a racist and apologize for it. You sounded rather upset in your responses.

And xPrae, the instant you make a response to anyone’s post, you invite those who visit to respond to your comment. It was out in the open, and it was seen by a lot of people who voiced their thoughts.

If you wanted it to be private, you should’ve sent an email. So, you really have no excuse to play the innocent victim.

this was an unforgetable experiance and put me at the very heart of Afro diasporic culture and everything Ive tried to talk about on this blog…

I cant write long so Ill have to make some quick comments

There are some things you have said that I can agree with , but , other things I dont feel comfortable at all…I cant tell if its Evangelical, maybe because of your stance on kids and string bikinis..and.your contention that racism doesnt exist in a lot of white Americans doesnt sit well for me at all…

You should go to a thread on here where it was for black people only, fine with me, and, they spoke of their first experiance with racism…there were many testimonies…some said that a teacher put them down along the way in a racist manner…

You mention celebrities and stars…there were black American entertainers who were succesful at the hight of Jim Crow and lynchings, hugely succesful…its doesnt mean anything if blocks of black Americans are suffering on the ground leval, and Ive seen this close up…white people play the clique good ole b oy game to the max…

Some of your opinions about liberals are strange and rub me the wrong way…I consider myself liberal, but, I dont like the far left or right equaly…

I dont think you are a racist, I think you are naive about racism

And , you raise some flags in me, but, hey, other commenters on here raise flags in me also, like people who have made scrutinising and negative statements about interracial sex…that disgust me…and, I can agree with those people on other things

or , the things I despise on the “Booty Dancing” thread, which, I have a feeling, you and me wouldnt see eye to eye on…but I agree with those people on other things

and, I have banged my head over here with some people on American foreign policy issues..I live in a country that has a lot of people who are anti American, and Ive learned to do some serious research on where I live and , I found that a lot of anti Americanism was just total bs based on lies and half truths, along with I found out the real dirt we did do which makes any claims of fighting for democracy around the world , a sham,

I think Abagond made a great point about where the average white person’s head was at in the 60′s, and what was accepted then

where I do disagree with some posters on here that white people are some devil encarnate, or that whites are the most violent of all history, I totaly see white racism in America alive and well in a lot of whites…I also know a lot of whites were always there for black Americans, and put their lives on the line..maybe the government know they really werent fighting to end slavery, a whole lot of northern whites went to their deaths thinking that is what they were doing, fighting to end slavery and the Confederacy was definitly fighting to keep slavery

but I recently passed through the states and was disgusted to see lots of whites arguing that if black Americans can use the n word why cant they? only a totaly ignorant person cant figure that out, I mean there is a certain portion of white American society that is carrying on the racist position , with new phrases to hide it…I see lots of change that needs to happen still

im on the run and cant type any longer…ill catch up later

xPraetorius:
And finally to one of the few substantive replies in this entire thread!

Well said, B. R. I don’t think I find much if anything to dispute here. I would like to summarize a bit: race relations are very complex.Way more complex than the “white-people-bad — POC-good” state of mind here at this blog.

I’ll be very interested to read the results of the studies you spoke of! And I took a look at your first link. Love it! Had to wade through the portuguese a bit, because it’s not one of my languages. However, I speak several other languages close to it, so was able to get a lot of it. Looks like beautiful exuberant, fun, energetic stuff! Again, I hope you have a wildly successful trip!

I never said you hurt me. I did say you should clear your conscience. I invite you to do so again.

And, again, for what the thousandth time? My tone was harsh. It was directed at Abagond’s post that equated Hitler with white people and white people with Hitler. My original post was, actually, insufficiently harsh.

You DID say I attacked you and that you wanted me so to stop calling you a racist and apologize for it. You sounded rather upset in your responses.

And xPrae, the instant you make a response to anyone’s post, you invite those who visit to respond to your comment. It was out in the open, and it was seen by a lot of people who voiced their thoughts.

If you wanted it to be private, you should’ve sent an email. So, you really have no excuse to play the innocent victim.

Praetorius:
You attacked me; you didn’t hurt me. I did invite others to respond. To respond to the content I posted, not to call me a racist and all the other garbage they flung. BW: do you pay attention to words, or are you intentionally misrepresenting everything I say?

“the harping on misused words, etc is ALL you do. Please feel free to present a substantive argument.”—So then you have no problem quoting where I have done this. [My reply: Correct. I have no problem doing that.] I admitted to what I have done, but you are now accusing me of something I haven’t. Again I made my point on your blog and oddly enough you proved it without knowing. So i am good. 🙂 [My reply: No you didn’t make any point that I then proved, but you are good.]

“Whatever: you said I read minds, and that was just funny.”—Deflection. Check.

Something which sort of puzzles me though is your expressed desire not to be considered racist. Why would that matter so much to you?

Oh no, he is not a racist, rather, he is the great white bwana.

Seriously, hilarity aside, why respond to this loon? Don’t bother answer, I feel an attack of gas coming on just reading this loon! I will be indisposed for the next 45 minutes catching up on the latest edition of the National Inquirer!

Something which sort of puzzles me though is your expressed desire not to be considered racist. Why would that matter so much to you?

Oh no, he is not a racist, rather, he is the great white bwana. [Ooooohhh…]

Seriously, hilarity aside, why respond to this loon? Don’t bother answer, I feel an attack of gas coming on just reading this loon! I will be indisposed for the next 45 minutes catching up on the latest edition of the National Inquirer! [Ooooohhh…]

xPraetorius:
Enjoy the magazine. You’ve apparently been intellectually indisposed for some time now. Have you sought professional help either for your delusions, the voices in your head, or your lack of IQ?

You attacked me; you didn’t hurt me. I did invite others to respond. To respond to the content I posted, not to call me a racist and all the other garbage they flung. BW: do you pay attention to words, or are you intentionally misrepresenting everything I say?

Yeah. Sure I didn’t.

I know what you’re saying. For the thousandth time, I told you that I familiar with the responses you gave because they are scripted and predictable. You also are apparently the type that doesn’t know when to quit, unless one or all of us cave in and say, “Praetorius, you were right. We were wrong, and we apologize deeply for our tones, misinformation and overall race baiting.”

(quoting me) You attacked me; you didn’t hurt me. I did invite others to respond. To respond to the content I posted, not to call me a racist and all the other garbage they flung. BW: do you pay attention to words, or are you intentionally misrepresenting everything I say?

BW:’s reply:
Yeah. Sure I didn’t.

xPraetorius:
You didn’t. You don’t know me…How on earth could your opinion of me hurt me?

BW said:

I know what you’re saying. For the thousandth time, I told you that I familiar with the responses you gave because they are scripted and predictable. You also are apparently the type that doesn’t know when to quit, unless one or all of us cave in and say,

xPraetorius:
Yes? Yes?

BW said, with deep humility and sincerity:

“Praetorius, you were right. We were wrong, and we apologize deeply for our tones, misinformation and overall race baiting.”

xPraetorius:
I accept your apology.

There, now that wasn’t really all that difficult, now was it? And, don’t you feel a lot better?

“We’ve seen those like him before, and each time is frustrating to hear the same broken arguments from different drones. Even though we’ve seen it all before, it’s still tiring that it continues to persist unabated with more and more people with the same mentality.”

***********

Which is why I pretty much ignore these idiot/long-winded racists. After cutting off their heads and sending them on their way, two or more always pop up in their place.

There are literally MILLIONS of new/fresh folks armed with their White Racial Frame standing by in the wings waiting to make the same tired/refuted arguments. That’s demonic… because it is meant to drain your energy and exhaust your life force!

Think about how exhausting it is to argue the same exact argument time after time, after time. Hence the invention of the Broken Record Department …

It’s really a never ending battle here with willfully racist (SUPERIOR WHITES) showing up regularly to roundly dismiss whatever truth, facts and evidence that’s presented to them. They’re not here to receive anything enlightening. They come to fulfill their need for attention and to pontificate (spew their BS) endlessly,

Do they deserve this level of attention?
How does it help us?
(Me, I’d much rather wrestle with a Jorbia than deal with clueless whites like …)

They are only useful (IMO) for educational and amusement purposes. Nothing more.

The above is the most fundamental example of a circular argument I have ever seen. In fact, I have saved your very example for future use should I come across them.

Of course, you can try to take back your words or deny what you wrote, but your own words betray your true reasoning.

I gather that the “Scientologist cult member” crack is your signal that you’ve unilaterally abrogated our mutual agreement not to delve into the personal attacks?

No, it’s a signal of your debate tactics. When presented with counter-evidence and shown that your argument is fallacious, you deny it and instead restate your claims ad nauseum as if they were fact.

In this regard, I stand by my statement: you remind me of a Scientist cult member. You have an almost religious devotion to your belief, which you assume is actually knowledge.

I’ll try something else for your plainly limited intellect.

This is an ad hominem attack and an example of your own hypocrisy. Let me get this straight: xPraetorius hurls an insult, yet suggests I was delving into “personal attacks”? Pure hypocrisy at its finest.

Pretend you’re in court observing. A lawyer is questioning a witness on the stand. He says to the witness, “Mr. Smith, answer me this: If a black person gets an education, speaks well, works hard, gets along well with others, and presents him or herself more or less normally, can he or she succeed in America?

I will play along. You need to define exactly what you mean by “success”. To borrow your phrase, the phrase is meaningless without context.

While a black person could obtain economic success, he or she could still face other forms of racism, such as profiling (followed in clothing stores, pulled over by the police, etc.) or many of the other myriad examples of discrimination others have raised.

On the other hand, I already pointed out the problems with your “5 points”:

1) It’s simplistic: other variables may impact success, such as cronyism, lack of strong social network, credit score bias, discrimination based on looks, etc.

2) It’s inapplicable to the real world/ too utopian: see #1. Your presumption is ideal only if people really are colorblind.

3) It’s too subjective: one may need a lot more than your 5 points to succeed. Also, it depends on one’s own definition of “success”.

4) It lacks explanatory power: as I said before, Abagond asked you to identify when racism stopped becoming a “big” problem, but you couldn’t answer it. Your response was, “I don’t know.”

Furthermore, I also asked you this, which you dodged:

“Please provide the criterion to distinguish a “big” problem from not a “big” problem in your model. Furthermore, please cite evidence to support the validity of this criterion.”

In response, you said you were “not the arbiter of ‘big’”. I then showed that the burden is on you to define it since you are the one making the case. You
failed to do so.

Apart from this, you have something bigger at stake: let us assume your “5 points” are correct. How does that DISPROVE RACISM? Please explain.

Again, TS, you were one of the few who could, I thought, be counted on to provide a not-completely-moronic reply without personal attacks. I see I was wrong in that assessment. I withdraw the positive assessment.

You failed your own standard when you said this:

I’ll try something else for your plainly limited intellect.

I have strong reason to suspect why you continue to defend your circular reasoning: you simply confuse belief with knowledge. Those two are not the same. Your belief is not a statement of fact, yet you assume it is.

“You also are apparently the type that doesn’t know when to quit, unless one or all of us cave in and say, “Praetorius, you were right. We were wrong, and we apologize deeply for our tones, misinformation and overall race baiting.””

xPraetorius edited that to say:

“BW said, with deep humility and sincerity:

“Praetorius, you were right. We were wrong, and we apologize deeply for our tones, misinformation and overall race baiting.””

Just to do Anne, and you all, a favor, I’ll use a text ornamentation to indicate where she has said something that is either (1) stupid, (2) irrelevant, (3) nonsensical, (4) gratuitous insult, (5) racial slur, (6) tries too hard to be clever, (7) I covered it bunch of times before, (8) responds to a post containing these things, or others as I identify them. That’ll help those of you who are unable to string a coherent thought together, and feel the needs to resort to those previous indications of a lazy or poorly stocked mind.

Here’s Anne’s post:

@brotherwolf, yes he did. Like I’ve said before. Don’t feed the stray dog and it will eventually go away. Are you still leaving scraps out for it?

Here’s Anne’s post, edited to remove the text that serves no purpose, or is really stupid:

Anne
@brotherwolf, yes he did. Like I’ve said before. Don’t feed the stray dog and it will eventually go away. Are you still leaving scraps out for it?

There! Much better…actually says something and contains no extraneous garbage.

Here are the corrections to Anne’s post: Reasons #1, 3, 4, 6 and 8 of the list.

If you’d like, I’ll help the rest of you out as you continue to post nonsensical, irrelevant, posts…

So: below is the list of things that you ought to avoid when posting, to save yourself and me time:

(1) stupid
(2) irrelevant
(3) nonsensical
(4) gratuitous insult
(5) racial slur
(6) tries too hard to be clever
(7) I covered it bunch of times before
(8) responds to a post containing these things
(9) wrong on the face of it
(10) statement is unknowable by the one making it. (Important Note: this has several reasons, but one that is extremely common on this blog is: mind reading. Those of you who start a sentence or a phrase, for example, with “White people …” should hear alarm bells going off. You are probably about to say something you can’t possibly know. Since mind reading is a staple of this crowd, I’ll give it its own entry.)
(11) mind reading
(12) pseudo-intellectual poppycock
(13) personal anecdote, of limited scope and extent, meant to prove a point across entire peoples. (This one is much beloved by this crowd too!)
(14) misstates something I said, then draws some conclusion from the erroneous statement. (This one is a big favorite of this crowd too!)

That’s all for now. I suspect I’ll encounter several more as I read and re-read.

Here’s an editing of a post by Matari to take out any substanceless blather that contributes nothing:

Matari said:

BrothaWolf

“We’ve seen those like him before, and each time is frustrating to hear the same broken arguments from different drones. (1,3,4,6) Even though we’ve seen it all before, it’s still tiring that it continues to persist unabated with more and more people with the same mentality.” (1,2,3,10,11)

***********

Which is why I pretty much ignore these idiot/long-winded racists. After cutting off their heads and sending them on their way, two or more always pop up in their place. (1,6)

There are literally MILLIONS of new/fresh folks armed with their White Racial Frame standing by in the wings waiting to make the same tired/refuted arguments. (10)That’s demonic…(9,10,11) because it is meant to drain your energy and exhaust your life force! (1,2,3,6,11,12)

Think about how exhausting it is to argue the same exact argument time after time, after time. Hence the invention of the Broken Record Department … 1

It’s really a never ending battle here with willfully racist 1,4,5,6,7(SUPERIOR WHITES) showing up regularly to roundly dismiss whatever truth, facts and evidence that’s presented to them. They’re not here to receive anything enlightening.1,10,11 They come to fulfill their need for attention and to pontificate (spew their BS) endlessly,1,10,11

Do they deserve this level of attention?
How does it help us?
(Me, I’d much rather wrestle with a Jorbia than deal with clueless whites like …)1,10,11,12 — though I like the new creature! A Jorbia! Cool!

They are only useful (IMO) for educational and amusement purposes. Nothing more.1,2,3,6

There! Now her passage is cleaned up. As a result, it has become identical to Anne’s fixed post.

It is hardly an evasion to ask whether you are racist: a) Look at the title of this post and b) YOU are the one who is making a big deal of people calling you racist. You know, maybe they are calling you racist because you are. In that case it is not slander but mere observation. Maybe you should take a hint. On the other hand, I do not remember anyone ACTUALLY calling you the R-word. They mostly fault your cluelessness and dishonesty. In my case you misread what I wrote and got your nose twisted out of shape.

It is hardly an evasion to ask whether you are racist: a) Look at the title of this post and b) YOU are the one who is making a big deal of people calling you racist. You know, maybe they are calling you racist because you are. In that case it is not slander but mere observation. Maybe you should take a hint. On the other hand, I do not remember anyone ACTUALLY calling you the R-word. They mostly fault your cluelessness and dishonesty. In my case you misread what I wrote and got your nose twisted out of shape.

xPraetorius:
Alright! A not entirely nonsensical post!

First: of course it was an evasion. I asked YOU the same question first. Your evasion consists in reacting to my asking you a question by asking me the same question. However, ok…I’ll bite. Nope; I’m not a racist.

@Abagond, @Abagond, @Abagond…if you really can allow the phrase to come from you, then it’s obvious why you are not moderating this blog in any sense of the word.

Here’s a tidbit from Kwamla: “So yes in your own explanations and words you are imbued with the dominant racist beliefs of this Western society and continuing to play your own ignorant part in contributing to its destruction and downfall!”

Ok…you and I both know that there are plenty of other comments filled with the same kind of nitwittery. If, for example, I were to say to you: “Because Bokassa and Amin ate children, then all blacks eat children, then you’d be perfectly accurate to say that I had called you a cannibal — even though you’re not Bokassa or Amin — and you’d be justified in calling me names. However

A little assistance for resw77, who is in need of serious remediation. 🙂

resw77 said:

@xPraetorius
“That’s rich, that last… coming from the crowd whose best and most powerful argument is: ‘You’re a racist!’ And, ‘You’re a liar!’”

I’ve never called you either of those names, but I did catch you in a lie on the “Was Hitler Evil” post.

Correction reasons: #10, 11, 14.

Reason #14 is because I said that the crowd used those nonsensical arguments, not every last individual member of the crowd. Yes, there are individuals who have not called me a racist. The “lie” remark presumes that resw77, can read my intent in saying something. A “lie” is an intentional falsehood. I have never, not even one time, lied in all these proceedings. Not even once.

“This is a particular favorite of yours!”—I have come to realize (quite early on mind you) That what you say I am saying or doing or meaning is usually quite the opposite of what I am saying or doing or meaning.

And xPraetorius still hasn’t commented on the links to the information I presented. Something tells me he will insert the word ‘liberal’ or ‘left’ in it somewhere. Though after reading this, he may not use those words and just call them stupid, irrelevant, etc. Then again, he may just reject it altogether without his usual arrogance and abrasiveness.

In my view any white person who adheres, without question, to this “standard” way of thinking is imbued with the type of racism I described:

The thing about this Western impositional form of “whiteness” as a standard for everyone to follow socially, culturally, economically, etc… is that it clearly does not work for everyone. It is not a true standard – even though – it is presented as one. But more importantly it is not a natural standard it is an artificially imposed standard. To that extent even the people on who’s culture it is primarily based on – white people – suffer grossly from it too…!

You may not agree with my description but it at least provides you with an identifiable context with which to deduce who I would assume to be racist. You can now judge for yourself whether your own words and behaviour (on this blog) actually fit this context or not.

Brotherwolf,
I think it is a severe form of aspergers. In some cases the person cannot relate to other human beings. They also tend to get angry for no reason because they have trouble forming bonds with people. It’s a lack of empathy.

On another note, would you like me to give you pointers on how to get rid of that stray that keeps following you? I think it is getting tired and desperate by now.

A Teenager would be more mature. This is more like the little kid that puts his fingers in his ears and goes “LaLaLaLaLa….I’m not listening.” LOL

I mean I come here for amusement but can’t get any better

Corrected Post:A Teenager would be more mature. This is more like the little kid that puts his fingers in his ears and goes “LaLaLaLaLa….I’m not listening.” LOL

I mean I come here for amusement but can’t get any better (#1,2,3,4,6,8,9)

By the way, to understand her corrections, sharina would say, “The post was corrected because it was stupid, irrelevant, nonsensical, contains a gratuitous insult, tries to hard to be clever, responds to another stupid post, and is wrong on the face of it.”

“The post was corrected because it was stupid, irrelevant, nonsensical, contains a gratuitous insult, tries to hard to be clever, responds to another stupid post, and is wrong on the face of it.”—I see someone can dish but not take. 😦 awww so sad. LOL

“I hope this is helpful.”—I hope it has come to your attention that I don’t care. 🙂

Brotherwolf,
I think it is a severe form of aspergers. In some cases the person cannot relate to other human beings. They also tend to get angry for no reason because they have trouble forming bonds with people. It’s a lack of empathy.

On another note, would you like me to give you pointers on how to get rid of that stray that keeps following you? I think it is getting tired and desperate by now.

Hugs and kisses,
a

Her Corrected post:
Brothawolf (spelling corrected)I think it is a severe form of aspergers. In some cases the person cannot relate to other human beings. They also tend to get angry for no reason because they have trouble forming bonds with people. It’s a lack of empathy.

On another note, would you like me to give you pointers on how to get rid of that stray that keeps following you? I think it is getting tired and desperate by now. (1,2,3,4,6,8,9,10,12)

Hugs and kisses,
a

To understand her corrections, Anne would say to herself, “The post needed to be corrected because it was stupid, irrelevant, nonsensical, contains a gratuitous insult, tries way too hard to be clever, responds to a stupid post, is wrong on the face of it, contains mind reading and pseudo-intellectual poppycock.

So, Anne’s post properly should have read:
Brothawolf
Hugs and kisses,
a

In my view any white person who adheres, without question, to this “standard” way of thinking is imbued with the type of racism I described:

The thing about this Western impositional form of “whiteness” as a standard for everyone to follow socially, culturally, economically, etc… is that it clearly does not work for everyone. It is not a true standard – even though – it is presented as one. But more importantly it is not a natural standard it is an artificially imposed standard. To that extent even the people on who’s culture it is primarily based on – white people – suffer grossly from it too…!

You may not agree with my description but it at least provides you with an identifiable context with which to deduce who I would assume to be racist. You can now judge for yourself whether your own words and behaviour (on this blog) actually fit this context or not.

Again, you don’t have to agree with it but it provides you with a much needed context missing from many of your postings. A bit more substantial than much of what you offered so far…

xPraetorius:
I have corrected Kwamla’s post to remove the unneeded or the plainly false. Here is the corrected post:

@xPraetorius

In my view any white person who adheres, without question, to this “standard” way of thinking is imbued with the type of racism I described:

The thing about this Western impositional form of “whiteness” as a standard for everyone to follow socially, culturally, economically, etc… is that it clearly does not work for everyone. It is not a true standard – even though – it is presented as one. But more importantly it is not a natural standard it is an artificially imposed standard. To that extent even the people on who’s culture it is primarily based on – white people – suffer grossly from it too…! (#9, 10,16)

You may not agree with my description but it at least provides you with an identifiable context with which to deduce who I would assume to be racist. You can now judge for yourself whether your own words and behaviour (on this blog) actually fit this context or not.

Could you actually be guilt of standard racism and not know it? (#7, flirts with #5)

Again, you don’t have to agree with it but it provides you with a much needed context missing from many of your postings. A bit more substantial than much of what you offered so far… (#14 — K: you came in later in the thread…I’ve provide lots and lots and lots of context. #16 also appears relevant here.)

xPraetorius:
First, I’d like to congratulate you on one of the more substantive posts.

Second, it did need some correction, and I have provided it.

Third: Here’s how your corrected post should read:

@xPraetorius

In my view any white person who adheres, without question, to this “standard” way of thinking is imbued with the type of racism I described:

You may not agree with my description but it at least provides you with an identifiable context with which to deduce who I would assume to be racist. You can now judge for yourself whether your own words and behaviour (on this blog) actually fit this context or not.

My reply:
Kwamla: I accept that you believe your first assertion. However there is no such thing, really, as a “standard” way of thinking in any context anywhere. Normally, I’d have edited that out for reason #9, but the rest of yoru post needed context.

Couple quick things. Kwamla and Matari have been offering some stuff that at its worst is pseudo-intellectual hooey (the Dr. Llaila Afrika stuff)…at its best is highly esoteric and did not strike me as anything resembling science, history or real analysis. Matari’s passage from the good Dr. Afrika, frankly, sounded like snake-oil to me. It still does. If it is some highly esoteric (known by few) stuff that is accepted science, then I do indeed plead ignorance. For example: This idea that melanin confers some mystical power to “feel” insincerity and deceitfulness struck me as quite a stretch, and certainly not meaningful as to my contention that “white racism is no a big problem in America anymore.”

Kwamla post has suggested one more editing reason for the posts of these two commenters: #16: resorts to esoteric sources and information whose validity can’t be verified in the context of this blog conversation.

Also, I’ll be happy to view your youtube video. I’ll reserve comment until after having viewed it. I also will have to research Tim Wise before knowing whether he’s a valid source. Dr. Afrika has seemed kind of “out there.” If Mr. Wise is as well, then I will have to suggest that your entire post “resorts to esoteric sources and information whose validity can’t be verified in the context of this blog conversation.”

Brothawolf
And xPraetorius still hasn’t commented on the links to the information I presented. Something tells me he will insert the word ‘liberal’ or ‘left’ in it somewhere. Though after reading this, he may not use those words and just call them stupid, irrelevant, etc. Then again, he may just reject it altogether without his usual arrogance and abrasiveness.

xPraetorius:
@BW: I have been kind of busy batting back the inanity. I tried to develop a shorthand method for you all to know when you’ve posted something particularly dumb, so that you could know not to do it anymore. Don’t forget I have to wade through a whole passel of muck before I can find the rare nugget of substance.

In other words, I work one whole heckuva lot harder than you in this conversation! 🙂

Please remember: for all the links that you suggest to me, I can suggest others that support my point of view. At that point, you’ll tell me that my source is no good and I’ll say the same to you, and we won’t get anywhere…Dueling videos or links are rarely useful.

Brotherwolf,
Not trying to trap anything. Just a matter of watching it implode after getting frustrated. In order for a comment to hurt someone has to bother reading it. If you pay attention, the less the focus is on it, the more the dramatic and insulting the comments. It is grasping for a response. Like shadow boxing.

sharina’s original post:
@xPraetorius
“The post was corrected because it was stupid, irrelevant, nonsensical, contains a gratuitous insult, tries to hard to be clever, responds to another stupid post, and is wrong on the face of it.”—I see someone can dish but not take. 😦 awww so sad. LOL

“I hope this is helpful.”—I hope it has come to your attention that I don’t care. 🙂

sharina’s Corrected Post:

“The post was corrected because it was stupid, irrelevant, nonsensical, contains a gratuitous insult, tries to hard to be clever, responds to another stupid post, and is wrong on the face of it.”I see someone can dish but not take. 😦 awww so sad. LOL (#2,6,7,10, )

“I hope this is helpful.”I hope it has come to your attention that I don’t care. (#1,2,6) 🙂

The Way sharina’s Post Really Should Have Read:
@xPraetorius
“The post was corrected because it was stupid, irrelevant, nonsensical, contains a gratuitous insult, tries to hard to be clever, responds to another stupid post, and is wrong on the face of it.”

“The post was corrected because it was stupid, irrelevant, nonsensical, contains a gratuitous insult, tries to hard to be clever, responds to another stupid post, and is wrong on the face of it.” “—According to you? Delusional. 🙂

“The post was corrected because it was stupid, irrelevant, nonsensical, contains a gratuitous insult, tries to hard to be clever, responds to another stupid post, and is wrong on the face of it.” “—According to you? Delusional. 🙂

Go ahead correct it. I like it when you try to feel important. 🙂

xPraetorius:
Why? You’re starting to get the point. Your bluster is starting to become less inane.

And, yes, the answer is “According to me. And, of course, according to you if I were to do the same to you.” 🙂

“Why? You’re starting to get the point. Your bluster is starting to become less inane.”—Is that what you have concluded? In most cases the opposite of what you conclude has a better chance of being true. 🙂

I’ll let you in on a little secret…..while you may hurl back insults. I am not one to get upset by them. 🙂 They are just words with no real substantial evidence other than the opinion of a man that does not know me. 🙂

“A ‘lie’ is an intentional falsehood. I have never, not even one time, lied in all these proceedings. Not even once.”

Perhaps you also have a short memory, or are lying again. Here’s our exchange from the “Was Hitler Evil?” post:

xPraetorius: “Kids DO receive morally blind propaganda in school today: propaganda telling them in perfectly UNBALANCED fashion just how evil white people were and still are.”

resw77: “‘No one tells anyone in any American school “how evil white people were and still are.’ Some kids simply look at the facts and come to their own conclusions…”

xPraetorius: “I guess you never attended an American school…nor, apparently, do you have children in American schools.”

resw77: “Which school is teaching kids that whites are evil? Just one example will suffice.”

xPraetorius: “Ok. Several examples: My grade school, high school and college — all public schools…”

…

xPraetorius: “I NEVER said whites received any UNFAIR treatment at the hands of the education system, rather that they received a ‘BALANCED’ treatment.”

resw77: “Let’s not play games here. You clearly said, and I quote, ‘Kids DO receive morally blind propaganda in school today: propaganda telling them in perfectly UNBALANCED fashion just how evil white people were and still are.’”

And I know your response is probably going to go like “I am talking about your post and not you…blah blah blah…” My posts or anyone’s post for that matter; will only hold any type of relevance to you if it in fact agrees with your own opinion or is pleasing to you. So it is what it is and I am free to take it with that grain of salt that I have been. 🙂

“A ‘lie’ is an intentional falsehood. I have never, not even one time, lied in all these proceedings. Not even once.”

Perhaps you also have a short memory, or are lying again. Here’s our exchange from the “Was Hitler Evil?” post:

xPraetorius: “Kids DO receive morally blind propaganda in school today: propaganda telling them in perfectly UNBALANCED fashion just how evil white people were and still are.”

resw77: “‘No one tells anyone in any American school “how evil white people were and still are.’ Some kids simply look at the facts and come to their own conclusions…”

xPraetorius: “I guess you never attended an American school…nor, apparently, do you have children in American schools.”

resw77: “Which school is teaching kids that whites are evil? Just one example will suffice.”

xPraetorius: “Ok. Several examples: My grade school, high school and college — all public schools…”

…

xPraetorius: “I NEVER said whites received any UNFAIR treatment at the hands of the education system, rather that they received a ‘BALANCED’ treatment.”

resw77: “Let’s not play games here. You clearly said, and I quote, ‘Kids DO receive morally blind propaganda in school today: propaganda telling them in perfectly UNBALANCED fashion just how evil white people were and still are.’”

xPraetorius:
@resw77: your inability or unwillingness to distinguish between a lie and an error that I admitted along with its correction, do not speak well either for your intellect or your education.

Again, I’ve never once — not once — lied in any of these exchanges. Why don’t you address the issues, instead of trying to read minds.

Using the definition he provided (with which I agree), it is indeed a lie.

Actually he lied twice:

(1) intentionally saying American schools teach an “unbalanced” view (and arguing with me about it) and then denying he ever said it; and

(2) telling me he was taught an unbalanced view in school (which must’ve been a lie since he now says that schools don’t teach an “unbalanced” view).

xPraetorius:
(sorry, I inadvertently pushed the “Post Comment” button early in the last post.) Since, now you know that I didn’t lie in that exchange, I trust you can drop this particular irrelevant sub-topic, in which you were mistaken.

Using the definition he provided (with which I agree), it is indeed a lie.

Actually he lied twice:

(1) intentionally saying American schools teach an “unbalanced” view (and arguing with me about it) and then denying he ever said it; and

(2) telling me he was taught an unbalanced view in school (which must’ve been a lie since he now says that schools don’t teach an “unbalanced” view).

xPraetorius:
One more thing is true: Since American schools do teach a balanced view of whites — including both the good and the bad — and an unbalanced view of other races — ignoring the bad — then it is perfectly valid to say that American schools teach an unbalanced view. It is further absolutely valid to consider this approach to be propagandistic.

To clarify what I said: I initially said that I had been taught an unbalanced view of Whites, and that I consider that view to be propaganda. I then stated that I disagreed with my own statement for several reasons: (1) Whites have been the majority ethnicity in America for most of its history. (2) It would make sense to provide a more comprehensive and balanced history of whites, than for all ethnicities for sheer practical reasons alone. And (3) whoever called me on it persuaded me of my error. I then accepted the correction. That’s how I recall it. Plainly no lying was involved. In fact, the real story buttresses my point that I’m the only serious commenter here. The rest of you either deflect, call names, insult, evade, avoid and spew bile.

Furthermore, I’ve accepted corrections and clarifications several times. If anyone were to re-read either this thread or the Hitler thread, they would see that I have debated and discussed in good faith.

sharina said:
And I know your response is probably going to go like “I am talking about your post and not you…blah blah blah…” My posts or anyone’s post for that matter; will only hold any type of relevance to you if it in fact agrees with your own opinion or is pleasing to you. So it is what it is and I am free to take it with that grain of salt that I have been. 🙂

Corrected Post:And I know your response is probably going to go like “I am talking about your post and not you…blah blah blah…” My posts or anyone’s post for that matter; will only hold any type of relevance to you if it in fact agrees with your own opinion or is pleasing to you. So it is what it is and I am free to take it with that grain of salt that I have been. (#2,6,7,8,10,11,) 🙂

I could put other definitions of lie in here and he would do nothing more than his unimportant corrections, because it is not what he wants it to be. I would actually feel a bit sad for him, but I will save my compassion for people I care about. 🙂

The above is the most fundamental example of a circular argument I have ever seen. In fact, I have saved your very example for future use should I come across them.

Of course, you can try to take back your words or deny what you wrote, but your own words betray your true reasoning.

I gather that the “Scientologist cult member” crack is your signal that you’ve unilaterally abrogated our mutual agreement not to delve into the personal attacks?

No, it’s a signal of your debate tactics. When presented with counter-evidence and shown that your argument is fallacious, you deny it and instead restate your claims ad nauseum as if they were fact.

In this regard, I stand by my statement: you remind me of a Scientist cult member. You have an almost religious devotion to your belief, which you assume is actually knowledge.

I’ll try something else for your plainly limited intellect.

This is an ad hominem attack and an example of your own hypocrisy. Let me get this straight: xPraetorius hurls an insult, yet suggests I was delving into “personal attacks”? Pure hypocrisy at its finest.

Pretend you’re in court observing. A lawyer is questioning a witness on the stand. He says to the witness, “Mr. Smith, answer me this: If a black person gets an education, speaks well, works hard, gets along well with others, and presents him or herself more or less normally, can he or she succeed in America?

I will play along. You need to define exactly what you mean by “success”. To borrow your phrase, the phrase is meaningless without context.

While a black person could obtain economic success, he or she could still face other forms of racism, such as profiling (followed in clothing stores, pulled over by the police, etc.) or many of the other myriad examples of discrimination others have raised.

On the other hand, I already pointed out the problems with your “5 points”:

1) It’s simplistic: other variables may impact success, such as cronyism, lack of strong social network, credit score bias, discrimination based on looks, etc.

2) It’s inapplicable to the real world/ too utopian: see #1. Your presumption is ideal only if people really are colorblind.

3) It’s too subjective: one may need a lot more than your 5 points to succeed. Also, it depends on one’s own definition of “success”.

4) It lacks explanatory power: as I said before, Abagond asked you to identify when racism stopped becoming a “big” problem, but you couldn’t answer it. Your response was, “I don’t know.”

Furthermore, I also asked you this, which you dodged:

“Please provide the criterion to distinguish a “big” problem from not a “big” problem in your model. Furthermore, please cite evidence to support the validity of this criterion.”

In response, you said you were “not the arbiter of ‘big’”. I then showed that the burden is on you to define it since you are the one making the case. You
failed to do so.

Apart from this, you have something bigger at stake: let us assume your “5 points” are correct. How does that DISPROVE RACISM? Please explain.

Again, TS, you were one of the few who could, I thought, be counted on to provide a not-completely-moronic reply without personal attacks. I see I was wrong in that assessment. I withdraw the positive assessment.

You failed your own standard when you said this:

I’ll try something else for your plainly limited intellect.

I have strong reason to suspect why you continue to defend your circular reasoning: you simply confuse belief with knowledge. Those two are not the same. Your belief is not a statement of fact, yet you assume it is.

The above is the most fundamental example of a circular argument I have ever seen. In fact, I have saved your very example for future use should I come across them.

Of course, you can try to take back your words or deny what you wrote, but your own words betray your true reasoning.

I gather that the “Scientologist cult member” crack is your signal that you’ve unilaterally abrogated our mutual agreement not to delve into the personal attacks?

No, it’s a signal of your debate tactics. When presented with counter-evidence and shown that your argument is fallacious, you deny it and instead restate your claims ad nauseum as if they were fact.

In this regard, I stand by my statement: you remind me of a Scientist cult member. You have an almost religious devotion to your belief, which you assume is actually knowledge.

I’ll try something else for your plainly limited intellect.

This is an ad hominem attack and an example of your own hypocrisy. Let me get this straight: xPraetorius hurls an insult, yet suggests I was delving into “personal attacks”? Pure hypocrisy at its finest.

Pretend you’re in court observing. A lawyer is questioning a witness on the stand. He says to the witness, “Mr. Smith, answer me this: If a black person gets an education, speaks well, works hard, gets along well with others, and presents him or herself more or less normally, can he or she succeed in America?

I will play along. You need to define exactly what you mean by “success”. To borrow your phrase, the phrase is meaningless without context.

While a black person could obtain economic success, he or she could still face other forms of racism, such as profiling (followed in clothing stores, pulled over by the police, etc.) or many of the other myriad examples of discrimination others have raised.

On the other hand, I already pointed out the problems with your “5 points”:

1) It’s simplistic: other variables may impact success, such as cronyism, lack of strong social network, credit score bias, discrimination based on looks, etc.

2) It’s inapplicable to the real world/ too utopian: see #1. Your presumption is ideal only if people really are colorblind.

3) It’s too subjective: one may need a lot more than your 5 points to succeed. Also, it depends on one’s own definition of “success”.

4) It lacks explanatory power: as I said before, Abagond asked you to identify when racism stopped becoming a “big” problem, but you couldn’t answer it. Your response was, “I don’t know.”

Furthermore, I also asked you this, which you dodged:

“Please provide the criterion to distinguish a “big” problem from not a “big” problem in your model. Furthermore, please cite evidence to support the validity of this criterion.”

In response, you said you were “not the arbiter of ‘big’”. I then showed that the burden is on you to define it since you are the one making the case. You
failed to do so.

Apart from this, you have something bigger at stake: let us assume your “5 points” are correct. How does that DISPROVE RACISM? Please explain.

Again, TS, you were one of the few who could, I thought, be counted on to provide a not-completely-moronic reply without personal attacks. I see I was wrong in that assessment. I withdraw the positive assessment.

You failed your own standard when you said this:

I’ll try something else for your plainly limited intellect.

I have strong reason to suspect why you continue to defend your circular reasoning: you simply confuse belief with knowledge. Those two are not the same. (#1,2,3,4,6,7,10) Your belief is not a statement of fact, yet you assume it is. (#10,11)

How TS’s post should have read:
Your belief is not a statement of fact,

xPraetorius:
@TS: That is correct: I never said that my belief was a statement of fact. Re-read.

As regards the ad hominem attacks, you are correct. However, you abrogated our agreement, so I merely responded to your ad hominem attack. I’ll quote you: “…Scientology cult member…” Since you used the illegitimate tactic, I was under no obligation to continue to restrain from using it. As regards hypocrisy: whatever. Any hypocrisy, whether imagined or real, doesn’t have any effect whatsoever on the validity of my words. Moreover, I’d rather be a hypocrite than an IQ-deprived, whining, self-obsessed, unhinged, scatter-brained, craven poltroon as most on this blog appear to be. 🙂

“Any hypocrisy, whether imagined or real, doesn’t have any effect whatsoever on the validity of my words. Moreover, I’d rather be a hypocrite than an IQ-deprived, whining, self-obsessed, unhinged, scatter-brained, craven poltroon as most on this blog appear to be. :)”—But you have proven to be all those things so your good. 🙂

I know correction correction, but hey can’t deny truth…oh wait…you can and you have. 🙂

It’s amazing how you continue to talk down to others and expect them to be nice and polite to you. That is not how it works in the real world. You get what you give.

People, including myself, have present our truths and information and all you do is shoot them down with insults and harmful criticisms that not display your lack of maturity. You are being disrespectful to almost everyone on this blog who disagrees with your whitewashed view of the world, and no one has made you resort to this childish, spoiled brat-like behavior that is a disgraceful. And of course, you’re so deluded in your innocence you don’t see yourself as the cause, but as the victim. Pathetic and pretty funny.

But for me, it’s boring. It’s gotten so predictable. I now see how you respond and how you think, thanks to you. You really don’t have a lot of depth or substance, Just the same bigoted, conservative, whitewashed, abrasive, sheltered babble peppered with insults. If I were you, I’d get a new routine. Right now, it’s like watching a week-long marathon of a 13 episode series non-stop.

It’s amazing how you continue to talk down to others and expect them to be nice and polite to you. That is not how it works in the real world. You get what you give.

People, including myself, have present our truths and information and all you do is shoot them down with insults and harmful criticisms that not display your lack of maturity. You are being disrespectful to almost everyone on this blog who disagrees with your whitewashed view of the world, and no one has made you resort to this childish, spoiled brat-like behavior that is a disgraceful. And of course, you’re so deluded in your innocence you don’t see yourself as the cause, but as the victim. Pathetic and pretty funny.

But for me, it’s boring. It’s gotten so predictable. I now see how you respond and how you think, thanks to you. You really don’t have a lot of depth or substance, Just the same bigoted, conservative, whitewashed, abrasive, sheltered babble peppered with insults. If I were you, I’d get a new routine. Right now, it’s like watching a week-long marathon of a 13 episode series non-stop.

BW’s corrected post:
xPraetorius

It’s amazing how you continue to talk down to others and expect them to be nice and polite to you. That is not how it works in the real world. You get what you give. (#2,7)

People, including myself, have present our truths and information and all you do is shoot them down with insults and harmful criticisms that not display your lack of maturity. (#3,9 [the “truths” presented were mostly only “perceptions, and, usually irrelevant to the topic.]) You are being disrespectful to almost everyone on this blog who disagrees with your (#2) whitewashed view of the world, (#3,10,11,12,16) and no one has made you resort to this childish, spoiled brat-like behavior that is a disgraceful. And of course, you’re so deluded in your innocence you don’t see yourself as the cause, but as the victim. Pathetic and pretty funny. (#3,4,10,11,12)

But for me, it’s boring. It’s gotten so predictable. I now see how you respond and how you think, thanks to you. You really don’t have a lot of depth or substance, Just the same bigoted, conservative, whitewashed, abrasive, sheltered babble peppered with insults. If I were you, I’d get a new routine. Right now, it’s like watching a week-long marathon of a 13 episode series non-stop. (#1,2,4,5,6,7,10,11,12,16)

“Any hypocrisy, whether imagined or real, doesn’t have any effect whatsoever on the validity of my words. Moreover, I’d rather be a hypocrite than an IQ-deprived, whining, self-obsessed, unhinged, scatter-brained, craven poltroon as most on this blog appear to be. 🙂 ”—But you have proven to be all those things so your good. 🙂

I know correction correction, but hey can’t deny truth…oh wait…you can and you have. 🙂